Tag Archives: of

Differentiating Seven ‘Ps’ of Marketing-Mix for Health Food Products – A strategic overview

Posted on by
Reply
As estimated by Nicholas Hall the health food products market in India is currently around U.S.$ 1.3 Billion with a huge marketing potential. However, the marketing-mix for such groups of health food products will need to be crafted in an innovative way and carefully tailored to suit the need of individual brands, by an astute marketer.
Definition of Health Food Products:In my view, the health food products are those, which have a favorable impact on human health, their physical performance or state of mind. Such products include various types of food substances, dietary supplements with medical benefits and are used mostly for the prevention of various types of diseases.

The global market:

The global market for health food products is projected to be around U.S.$ 190 Billion by 2010 with a CAGR of 6.1% during 2000 – 2010. In 2007 its market size was reported to be U.S.$ 166 Billion.

Categories of health food products:

Before we delve into the space of marketing-mix, let me try to categorize these products under the following six categories:

• Functional Foods:

- These are dietary components, which provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition, like
isabgool or psyllium husk, whey proteins, bran or oats

• Medicinal Foods:

- These are functional foods with more medicinal value, for e.g. cranberry juice, anti-diabetic/anti-obesity health
bars with added medication etc.

• Nutraceuticals:

- This category comprises of substances which are foods or part of a food with usually preventive health benefits
like vitamins, minerals, gingko biloba, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, ginseng, garlic, tulsi, kalmegh, brahmi, saffron,
ashwagandha, green tea, karela powder etc.

• Phytochemcials:

- These products are like lycopene found in tomatoes or flavanoids in fruits. Such substances usually do not
possess any nutritive value but offer some disease preventive properties.

• Ayurvedic and Herbal Medicines:

- These are derived from plants and are used as such or in form of extracts and possess disease preventive
properties.

• Other health related products are like sports nutrition and various types of organic foods.

Key Drivers:

In my view following are the four key drivers of the health food products market in India:

• Consumer awareness:
- Increasing consumer health consciousness will increase the popularity of health food products

• Changing lifestyle:
- Incidence of lifestyle diseases like hypertension, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular diseases has been
increasing with fast changing consumer lifestyle. Moreover, increasing cost of serious medical treatment is
also encouraging people to go for preventive health care.

• Ageing population:
- Ageing population in India is expected to contribute significantly to increase the demand for health foods
supplements and functional foods to address various types age related health conditions.

• New scientific evidence of various health foods:
- Ongoing scientific research studies to establish health benefits of various food substances and dietary
supplements will help expanding the ambit health food products at a faster speed.

Key challenges for Herbal Food Products:

Herbal products taken from two or more different sources may not necessarily have the same potency, leading to concerns of batch to batch product quality variations in terms of efficacy, which depends on the potency of the material used.

Differentiating the marketing-mix:

For health food products, instead of conventional four Ps of marketing, one will need to consider the following seven Ps:

1. Product :

Health food products will need to have the following:

• Scientifically documented health benefits
• Innovative product development targeting different consumer segments
• Clear brand differentiation
-Without this ‘Horlicks Vs Viva’ story is expected to be repeated more often than in the past with enlightened consumer base.
• Reasonable standardization

2. Place:

Innovative use of this ‘P’ will play a critical role in the success of any health food product.

The following distribution outlets for the health food products are important:

• Kirana / Grocery stores
• Supermarkets

However, equally important is the availability of these products in pharmacies as many consumers will perceive these products as important as medicines and may enquire at the pharmacy outlets for their availability.

• Multi Level Marketing (MLM)
- MLM can be used innovatively for health food products marketing, as is being done currently by Amway, Herbal Life etc.

3. Price:

Price of a health food product like many other products is a function of values that the brand will offer and will also depend on:

• Differential brand features and benefits
• Product life cycle

However, pressure on margin for health food products will be more due to:
• Strong bargaining power of distributors’ chain / supermarket stores, unlike pharmaceutical products where retail and wholesale margin is fixed in India
• High promotional expenditure due to usage of both mass media and relatively intensive personal selling.

4. Promotion :

For health food promotion following common tools just like any consumer product marketing will help:

• Advertising through mass media
• Point of Purchase Promotion (POP)
• Sampling

In addition, following campaigns may prove to be highly beneficial for such products:

• Awareness campaign for usefulness of disease prevention measures
• Medical promotion
- This will be important especially for health food products designed for children where the parents usually seek a doctor’s opinion about the product benefits. Doctors may not necessarily prescribe the product but their ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer in reply to parents’ questions on the product may prompt whether the parents will continue with this product for the child or not.

Other types of promotion for health food products may be the following:

• Multi level marketing
• Promotion in schools, sports clubs etc.
• Telemarketing of brand services
- These are especially important for health food products meant for children. In such cases, a telemarketing cell consisting of trained nurses or dieticians, will enquire about the progress of the child with the product and give various advices to the mothers for the child, as required by them. Such types of telemarketing services through specialists will help adding a premium image to the brand to indirectly boost up the sales.
• Internet / social forums
- These tools can also be innovatively used for health food brand promotion.

5. People :

For health food products marketing, people with the following skill sets have been found immensely beneficial:

• Sales person with additional training inputs on concerned health related subjects
• Telemarketing of services with people having nursing or a dietician’s background

6. Process :

- All other ‘P’s’ may work with absolute efficiency, but if the marketing process remains inefficient, the branding exercise may be adversely impacted. Thus following areas need to concentrated upon with equal zest:

• Process efficiency
• Process speed
• Process innovation
• Efficiency of IT interface within the marketing process

7. Physical Evidence :

Now a day’s individual enlightened consumer usually wants to know the ability of the manufacturer and the environment in which a product is manufactured, along with the quality of services that is delivered for the brand. Hence, while considering the marketing-mix for health food products the ‘P’ of ‘physical evidence’ is expected to play an increasingly important role.

Conclusion:

It is therefore of immense importance for the marketers to consider the differentiated marketing-mix of seven ‘Ps’ for health food products in their branding exercise.

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.

India and China…Practical relevance of ‘Priority Watch List (PWL)’ status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ of America…and the REAL ‘Game Changers’

Posted on by
Reply

Many stakeholders around the world believe that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) environment in China is far better than what we have in India. Interestingly “2010 Special 301 Report” of the United States of America dated April 30, 2010, paints a totally different picture.

The priority watch list (PWL)’ countries:

The Office of The United States Trade Representative, in the Press Release of ’2010 Special 301 report’, mentioned the names of PWL countries as follows:
“Trading partners on the Priority Watch List (PWL) do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection. China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela are on the Priority Watch List. These countries will be the subject of particularly intense engagement through bilateral discussion during the coming year”.

It is, therefore, quite clear that so far as IPR environment is concerned both China and India feature in the PWL of America. This totally breaks the perceived myth, as is being very often made out to be by many, that China is a better implementer of IPR than India.
Reasons for featuring in the ‘Priority Watch List’ (PWL):
“2010 Special 301 Report” makes the following comments for China and India being in the PWL of the USA:

China:
1. China will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010 and will remain subject to Section 306 monitoring. China’s enforcement of IPR and implementation of its TRIPS Agreement obligations remain top priorities for the United States…the overall level of IPR theft in China remains unacceptable.
2. The United States is heartened by many positive steps the Chinese government took in 2009 with respect to these issues, including the largest software piracy prosecution in Chinese history, and an increase in the numbers of civil IP cases in the courts.
3. The United States is also deeply troubled by the development of policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders by promoting “indigenous innovation” including through, among other things, preferential government procurement and other measures that could severely restrict market access for foreign technology and products.
4. China’s IPR enforcement regime remains largely ineffective and non-deterrent.
5. The U.S. copyright industries report severe losses due to piracy in China.
6. Counterfeiting remains pervasive in many retail and wholesale markets.
7. China maintains market access barriers, such as import restrictions and restrictions on wholesale and retail distribution, which can discourage and delay the introduction into China’s market of a number of legitimate foreign products that rely on IPR.
8. China’s market access barriers create additional incentives to infringe products.
9. China adopts policies that unfairly advantage domestic or “indigenous” innovation over foreign innovation and technologies.
10. Draft Regulations for the Administration of the Formulation and Revision of Patent-Involving National Standards, released for public comment in November 2009 by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), raise concerns regarding their expansive scope, the feasibility of certain patent disclosure requirements, and the possible use of compulsory licensing for essential patents included in national standards.
11. With respect to patents, on October 1, 2009, the Third Amendment to China’s Patent Law, passed in December 2008, went into effect. While many provisions of the Patent Law were clarified and improved, rights holders have raised a number of concerns about the new law and implementing regulations, including the effect of disclosure of origin requirements on patent validity, inventor remuneration, and the scope of and procedures related to compulsory licensing, among other matters. The United States will closely follow the implementation of these measures in 2010.
12. The United States encourages China to provide an effective system to expeditiously address patent issues in connection with applications to market pharmaceutical products.
13. The United States continues to have concerns about the extent to which China provides effective protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products.
14. Generally, IPR enforcement at the local level is hampered by poor coordination among Chinese government ministries and agencies, local protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for initiating investigations and prosecuting criminal cases, lack of training, and inadequate and non-transparent processes. As in the past, the United States will continue to review the policies and enforcement situation in China at the sub-national levels of government.

India:
1. India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010.
2. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR.
3. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts.
4. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol.
5. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings.
6. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy.
7. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement.
8. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem.
9. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents.
10. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery.
11. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.
12. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes.
13. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year.

Responses and reactions in India:
‘Special 301 Reports’ have always been received with skepticism both by the Government of India and the domestic media. Even in the past, PWL status has hardly bothered either India or China to bring in a radical change in the IPR environment of the respective countries, as desired by the USA.

A recent article on the ‘Special 301 Report 2010’ that appeared in ‘Business Standard’, Sunday, May 2, 2010 comments as follows:

“India, in fact, continues to be on the ‘priority watch list’ of the USTR’s ‘Special 301’ report, despite a detailed submission of the intellectual property rights (IPR) compliance measures initiated by it in 2009”.

Many stakeholders in India feel and have also articulated that despite the country taking important steps to improve implementation of IPR within the country, the position of India in ‘Special 301 Reports’ has not changed much since last so many years. India, therefore, envisages no harsh measures by the US Government as a result of being continuously in the PWL of the ‘Special 301 Reports’.

Why then China attracts more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) than India in the Pharmaceutical space?

In my view, this has got not much to do with the IPR environment in these two countries. The key ‘Game Changers’ for China, I reckon, are as follows:

1. Larger market size due to greater access to medicines:
Access to medicine in China covers 85% of their 1.2 billion population, against 35% of 1.1 billion population of India.

2. Larger market size due to better affordability of medicine:

Around 85% of the population in China is covered through various medicine price reimbursement schemes. Whereas in India around 78% of such expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ expenses. Conversely, not more than 22% of the population is currently covered by drug price reimbursement schemes in India.

3. Strong signals to the Government that ‘innovative companies’ are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the country:

In such a booming pharmaceutical market scenario, it is essential for the business to keep the government engaged to help create a more ‘innovative pharmaceutical business’ friendly environment, where even a slight improvement in the prevailing IPR conditions will give a significant boost to their business performance.

IMS forecasts that by 2013 China is going to be the third largest pharmaceutical market in the world with an estimated turnover of US $66.7 billion against 13 ranking of India in the same league table, with an estimated turnover of US $15.5 billion.

Similar trend was observed in the immediate past, as well. As reported by IMS MAT September 2009, China registered a turnover of US $24 billion with 27.1% growth against US $7.7 billion with 12.9% growth of India, during the same period. IMS, based on their research data forecasts that during 2008-13 period, China will contribute 36% of the growth of the Asia Pacific Region, against 12% of India.

Under this situation, it appears quite prudent for the ‘innovative pharmaceutical companies’ to send signals to the Chinese Government that they are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the nation by making significant direct investments, obviously with an expectation to get more business friendly environment in that country.

Recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ in China has further improved its market attractiveness.

Thus the business attractiveness of China as a pharmaceutical market scores much higher than India, fetching more FDIs for them, prevailing IPR environment and PWL status in the ‘Special 301 Reports’ for the country not withstanding.

Conclusion:

Overall IPR environment in India, many experts strongly believe, does not seem to be much different from China, if not a shade better. While interacting with Chinese experts recently in that part of the world, I understand, ‘Data Protection’ is just ‘on paper’ in China, causing a huge issue for the innovator companies in that country. Similar situation prevails so far as the effectiveness of patent enforcement mechanism is concerned, where innovator companies are fighting and required to fight such infringement cases in the provincial level and in so many provinces of the country, posing a huge challenge to the patent holders.

So far as PWL status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ is concerned, it seems to have almost lost its relevance, as both India and China become stronger economies with increasing global dependence on them, consistently registering double digit or near double digit GDP growth.

In china, the pharmaceutical market attractiveness, its size and growth are driven by two key factors as mentioned above, viz, huge domestic market access/ penetration and better affordability of medicines through various effective medicine price re-imbursement schemes, across the country. The recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ of the country has added further momentum to this progress.

So long as India does not take robust policy measures, followed by their effective implementation to address, much ignored, the access and affordability issues of medicines for the common man, the country will continue to be a laggard, compared to China in the race of market leadership within the global pharmaceutical industry.

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.

Access to affordable healthcare to 65% of Indian population still remains a key issue even after six decades of independence of the country.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite so much of stringent government control, debate and activism on the affordability of modern medicines in India, on the one hand, and the success of the government to make medicines available in the country at a price, which is cheaper than even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, on the other, the fact still remains, about 65% of Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medicines, as compared to just 15% in China and 22% in Africa.The moot question therefore arises, despite all these stringent price regulation measures by the government and prolonged public debates over nearly four decades to ensure better ‘affordability of medicines’, why then ‘access to modern medicine’ remained so abysmal to a vast majority of the population of India, even after sixty years of independence of the country?This vindicates the widely held belief that in India no single minister or ministry can be held accountable by the civil society for such a dismal performance in the access to healthcare in the country. Is it then a ‘system flaw’? May well be so.

Poor healthcare infrastructure:

As per the Government’s own estimate, India falls far short of its minimum requirements towards basic public healthcare infrastructure. The records indicate, as follows:

1. A shortage of 4803 Primary Health Centres (PHC)

2. A shortage of 2653 Community Health Centres (CHC)

3. No large Public Hospitals in rural areas where over 70% of the populations live

4. Density of doctors in India is just 0.6 per 1000 population against 1.4 and 0.8 per 1000 population in China and Pakistan respectively, as reported by WHO.

The Government spending in India towards healthcare is just 1.1% of GDP, against 2% of China and 1.6% of Sri Lanka, as reported by the WHO.

Some good sporadic public healthcare initiatives to improve access:

The government allocation around US$2.3 billion for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), is a good initiative to bring about uniformity in quality of preventive and curative healthcare in rural areas across the country.
While hoping for the success of NRHM, inadequacy of the current rural healthcare infrastructure in the country with about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals located only in the urban India may encourage the skeptics.

PPP to improve access to medicines:

At this stage of progress of India, ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ initiatives in the following four critical areas could prove to be very apt to effectively resolve this issue

1. PPP to improve affordability:

It appears that in earlier days, the policy makers envisaged that stringent drug price control mechanism alone will work as a ‘magic wand’ to improve affordability of medicines and consequently their access to a vast majority of Indian population.

When through stricter price control measures the access to medicines did not improve in any significant measure, the industry associations reportedly had jointly suggested to the government for a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model way back in December 2006. The comprehensive submission made to the government also included a proposal of extending ‘concessional price for government procurement’ under certain criteria.

In this submission to the government, the industry did not suggest total price de-regulation for the pharmaceutical industry of India. Instead, it had requested for extension of the price monitoring system of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’, which is currently working very effectively for over 80 percent of the total pharmaceutical industry in India. Balance, less than 20 percent of the industry, is currently under cost-based price control.

However, the argument of the NPPA against this suggestion of the pharmaceutical industry is that the market entry price of any formulation under the ‘price monitoring’ mechanism is not decided by the government. Hence without putting in place any proper price control/negotiation system to arrive at the market entry price of the price decontrolled formulations, the existing ‘price monitoring’ mechanism may not be as effective, as in future more and more high price patented non-schedule formulations are expected to be introduced in the market.

However, the government seems to have drafted a different drug policy, which has now been referred to a new Group of Ministers for approval. It is worth noting that to make the PPP proposal of the industry effective, the Ministry of Health, both at the centre and also at the state levels, will require to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercises in the primary and also in the secondary healthcare infrastructural facilities. FICCI is reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds for similar capacity building exercises.

Frugal budgetary allocation towards healthcare could well indicate that the government is gradually shifting its role from public healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to help building the required capacity. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure leave aside other financial incentives, could impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, as well.

2. PPP to leverage the strength of Information Technology (IT) to considerably neutralize the healthcare delivery system weaknesses:

Excellence in ‘Information Technology’ (IT) is a well recognized strength that India currently possesses. This strengths needs to be leveraged through PPP to improve the process weaknesses. Harnessing IT strengths, in the areas of drug procurement and delivery processes, especially in remote places, could hone the healthcare delivery mechanism, immensely.

3. PPP in ‘Telemedicine’:

‘‘Telemedicine” is another IT enabled technology that can be widely used across the nation to address rural healthcare issues like, distant learning, disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ailments.
Required medicines for treatment could be made available to the patients through ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), by properly utilising the Government controlled public distribution outlets like, ration shops and post offices, which are located even in far flung and remote villages of India.

4. PPP in healthcare financing for all:

Unlike many other countries, over 72 percent of Indian population pay out of pocket to meet their healthcare expenses.

While out of a population of 1.3 billion in China, 250 million are covered by insurance; another 250 million are partially covered and the balance 800 million is not covered by any insurance, in India total number of population who have some healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and the penetration of health insurance is just around 3.5% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China mainly due to their better response to healthcare needs of the country.

As the government has announced ‘Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ for the BPL families, an integrated and robust healthcare financing model for all, is expected to address the affordability issue more effectively.

According to a survey done by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 40% of the people hospitalised in India borrow money or sell assets to cover their medical expenses. A large number of population cannot afford to required treatment, at all.

Conclusion:

An integrated approach by creating effective healthcare infrastructure across the country, leveraging IT throughout the healthcare space and telemedicine, appropriately structured robust ‘Health Insurance’ schemes for all strata of society, supported by evenly distributed ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, deserve consideration of the government to improve access to affordable healthcare to a vast majority of population of the country, significantly.

Well researched PPP models in all these areas, involving the stakeholders, need to be effectively implemented, sooner, to address this pressing issue.

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.

National Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) prevention program of the government needs a new thrust to contain the burden of disease in India.

Posted on by
Reply
The disease pattern in India is showing a perceptible shift from the age old ‘Infectious Diseases’ to ‘Non-infectious Chronic Illnesses’. As reported by IMS, incidence of chronic ailments in India has increased from 23 percent in 2005 to 26 percent in 2009. It is estimated that chronic illnesses will be the leading cause of both morbidity and mortality by the next decade.As a consequence of such changing disease pattern, healthcare needs and related systems of the country should undergo a paradigm shift together with the emergence of a carefully planned concept of ‘Preventive Healthcare’ for the entire population of the nation.
It is a myth that non-infectious illnesses are more prevalent in higher socio-economic strata:

There is a common perception that non-communicable diseases are more prevalent within higher socio-economic strata of the society. However, a national survey done in India shows that diseases related to misuse of alcohol and tobacco are higher in the poorest 20 percent quintile of our society.

Current healthcare system in India:

Currently with appropriate disease treatment measures, alleviation of acute symptoms of the disease that a particular patient is suffering from, is the key concern of all concerned starting from the doctors to the patients and their family. The process of the medical intervention revolves round treatment protocols and procedures based on the diagnosis of the current ailments and not so much on preventive measures for other underlying diseases, except with the use of vaccines for some specific diseases.

Developing a protocol for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ for non-communicable diseases is very important:

In the above process, while addressing the acute problems of the patients’ current ailments is very important, proper risk assessment of other underlying diseases, if any, which the patient could suffer from in future, for various reasons, do not attract any organized attention. As a result the important advice on preventive healthcare from the doctors, properly highlighting its importance, is not available to most of the patients to enable them to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, their future burden of disease.

Keeping such common practices in view and noting that ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is significantly different from ‘Curative Healthcare’, developing an appropriate protocol for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ has become a crying need of the hour.

‘Preventive Healthcare’ in India should attract high priority of the healthcare policy makers with a care vigil on its effective implementation at the ground level:

All said and done, the ‘Preventive Healthcare’ system in India is in its very nascent stage. If appropriate measures are taken in this area, like learning to reduce the impact of mental and physical stress, avoiding sedentary life style, taking healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and alcohol consumption, leading healthy sex life etc., it can in turn immensely help the population to remain disease free and healthy, thereby contributing to improvement of their respective work productivity in a very substantial way.

The Medical Council of India should also step in:

Thus the role of medical professionals in the disease prevention process is also very important. The interaction of the patients with the doctors when they meet to address any ailment provides huge opportunity to the doctors to advise those patients about various measures of underlying disease prevention, for which different patients have different types of exposures.

Keeping all these points in view, through regulatory initiatives, the Medical Council of India (MCI) should consider making ‘Preventive Healthcare’ an integral part of each interaction of a patient with a doctor.

Include the civil society in the healthcare improvement process of the nation:

The risk factors of many of the diseases like, cancer, chronic respiratory disorders, cardiovascular, diabetes, and hypertension can be identified well in advance and appropriately assessed. Therefore, such diseases can be prevented effectively, to a great extent, provided the healthcare policy of the country supports the ‘Disease Prevention’ process, program and initiatives through adequate resource allocation, improving awareness of the civil society and above all including them in this healthcare improvement process of the nation.

Need to raise general awareness towards ‘Preventive Healthcare’:

Raising the level of awareness of ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is indeed very important. It requires a change in the mindset of the community in general, together with the healthcare policy makers, medical profession, employers, patients and their families.

National Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) prevention program of the government:

As per the planning commission, the government of India has initiated the following structured measures for the prevention of NCD:

• “Health education for primary and secondary prevention of NCDs through mobilizing community action;
• Development of treatment protocols for education and training of physicians in the prevention and management of NCDs:
• Strengthening/creation of facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of CVD and stroke, and the establishment of referral linkages;
• Promotion of the production of affordable drugs to combat diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction;
• Development and support of institutions for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities;
• Research support for: Multispectral population-based interventions to reduce risk factors;
• The role of nutrition and lifestyle-related factors;
• The development of cost effective interventions at each level of care”.

Conclusion:

Many diseases in India, with proper ‘Disease Prevention’ measures can be effectively averted. It is worth repeating that some common measures which can be easily practiced through community initiatives are maintenance of proper hygiene, sanitation, adequate physical activities, moderation in alcohol and tobacco consumption, healthy sexual activities, avoidance of unhealthy food etc.

Besides, the government should spearhead the paradigm change towards ‘Preventive healthcare’ by including the civil society as a part of this process along with appropriate regulations wherever necessary, generating increased awareness within all concerned and through mobilization of adequate resources. All these will ultimately help all of us to translate the well-known dictum into reality, ‘Prevention is better than cure’.

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.

To avoid “Heparin” like tragedy in future, a robust “supply chain integrity and security” system is of critical importance

Posted on by
Reply

Globally the pharmaceutical industry is going through a metamorphosis. The types of changes that are taking place today globally, perhaps has no precedence..

The key drivers of these changes are mainly the following:

1. A large number of patent expiration hugely impacting the top-line growth
2. Research pipeline is drying-up
3. The cost of bringing a new molecule from the ‘mind to market’ has now touched around U.S$ 1.75 billion
4. Regulatory requirement to get the marketing approval is getting more and more stringent, basically for patients’ safety, making clinical development more expensive and time consuming
5. Cost containment measures of various governments around the world is putting an immense pressure on product price, adversely affecting the profit margin

Strategic measures of enormous significance:

All these are triggering other sets of consequential events of enormous significance. Among those following key corporate strategic measures indeed stand out:

1. More mergers and acquisitions of various sizes and scales to achieve both revenue and cost synergy, with new products and newer types of resources
2. Transformation in the fundamental operating models, e.g. R&D focused companies like Pfizer, GSK, sanofi aventis are extending their business interest to the pharmaceutical generics space
3. Increasing globalization and greater focus on the emerging markets of the world like, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Turkey, Mexico
4. Growing emphasis on partnering, as we see in India, like for example, between Pfizer and Aurobindo, Claris, GSK with Dr. Reddy’s Lab (DRL)
5. Global outsourcing in the ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMs)’’space, mainly to rationalize costs and deliver the bottom lines, when the top line is under immense pressure.

Demand on all round effectiveness of the “Supply Chain”:
The changing requirements of all types, in sales and marketing, manufacturing and research and development have created a challenging, if not a rather volatile operating environment. In this situation supply chain will increasingly play a key role to ensure that the right product is available at the right place, at the right time, at a right price and following the right process…always.

Outsourcing initiative is not just about cost:
There is at the same time, a new trend emerging for increased outsourcing initiative, especially from countries like India and China. This initiative, which in turn is in the process of making these two countries the key global outsourcing hubs, is definitely not all due to just cost advantages. It encompasses increased integrated value proposition for the customers. Cost is just one of the key factors, others being quality, speed and suppliers’ reliability. Nothing in this value chain is mutually exclusive. Supply Chain will need to go through a set of complex algorithms to strike a right balance between all these vital parameters.

Robust “supply chain integrity and security’ will assume critical importance:
In the days to come by one of the greatest challenges in supply chain management will be to improve the supply chain integrity and security.
An appropriate definition of integrity for supply chains is:

“the requirement that the system performs its intended function in an unimpaired manner, free from deliberate or inadvertent manipulation.”
A safe and secure supply chain is definitely not a new requirement. However, in the list of priority of importance, it has now come up significantly compared to what it was just a few years back.

Are the pharmaceutical companies aligned on this issue?
Though the issue of improving the supply chain integrity and security has now assumed global importance, unfortunately, any uniformity in national regulatory requirements for this vital parameter is glaringly missing. Such a lack of regulatory uniformity clearly highlights that the pharmaceutical companies, engaged in manufacturing, are still not aligned with each other on what will be the right way to ensure absolute integrity, safety and security in the supply chain operating process to guarantee patients’ safety.

RFID is just one component of supply chain integrity:
Globally many Pharmaceutical Companies are getting engaged in improving supply chain integrity, security and patient safety with the introduction RFID. This, as many may know, is an inventory tracking system for improved product traceability, which in turn extends some protection to its customers with genuine products from the genuine pharmaceutical manufacturers. It is worth noting that RFID is just one component of overall patients’ safety initiative.

Suppliers’ qualification process through stringent ‘supplier audit’ is of critical importance:
Along with high tech measures like RFID, to improve supply chain integrity, I reckon, pharmaceutical companies will need to further enhance their respective supplier qualification process.
The process of supplier audits should include all important and critical areas of manufacturing, testing and quality, related to each individual product. Only a stringent supplier qualification process will be able to guarantee integrity, safety and the quality of products from the suppliers.

Heparin tragedy, where the supply chain integrity was grossly violated:
Before I conclude, I would like reinforce my recommendation with the example of Heparin tragedy where the supply chain integrity was violated and seriously challenged thereafter.

In the beginning of 2008, there were media reports on serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, with Heparin, a highly-sulfated glycosaminoglycan of Baxter International. Heparin is widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Baxter voluntarily recalled almost all their Heparin products in the U.S. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries.

A joint investigation conducted by Baxter and the US FDA ascertained that the Heparin used in batches associated with the serious adverse drug events was contaminated with over sulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS). It was reported that his Heparin was supplied to Baxter by Scientific Protein Laboratories, Changzhou, China.

The cost of OSCS is just a fraction of the ingredient used in Heparin. Being driven by the criminal profiteering motive the manufacturers in Changzhou, China had reportedly used OSCS for highly-sulfated glycosaminoglycan as the former could not be detected by the pharmacopeia test in use, until 2008. This is because OSCS mimics Heparin in the pharmacopeia test and thus could not be detected in the case in question.
Post this criminal event, at present, all over the world more specific pharmacopeia test methods have been adopted for Heparin.

Conclusion:
Let us all ensure that such a tragedy does not get repeated in future due to a breach in the supply chain integrity, anywhere in the world…for the patients’ sake.
In today’s deliberations I am sure this issue will be touched upon to ponder over the possible implementable steps to address such future threats effectively.

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.

A global pharmaceutical iconoclast, who sees “Fortune” beyond the creamy top layers of the society … even at the bottom of the Pyramid

Posted on by
Reply

In March 2009 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) unraveled a path breaking vision, within the global pharmaceutical industry, with the creation of a ‘voluntary patent pool’to spark development of new treatments for neglected diseases of the poorest countries of the world.

The head honcho of GSK Andrew Witty articulated, as reported by Reuters, ‘he feels that this is the right way to help research, especially of tropical diseases like malaria, filariasis, cholera etc. to meet the unmet needs of the poorer population of the world’.

Cares for the poor:
Simultaneously, Witty also announced that GSK will sell its patented medicines in the 50 poorest countries of the world at 25% of their cost in the developed nations and invest 20% of profits made in these poorest countries to help creating and developing local healthcare infrastructure and treatment facilities for the indigenous population.

It appeared to me that this young global pharma CEO is charting the yet uncharted frontiers where there are no footsteps to follow. Witty attained this iconic status when he aired his views without slightest hesitation by admitting openly, “Society expects us to do more in addressing these issues. To be frank, I agree. We have the capacity to do more and we can do more”.

Challenged the global pharmaceutical industry:
The young CEO, to utter surprise of many, further added, “he was challenging the industry to go further to address global health problems by being more flexible on patent protection and pricing in the neediest countries”.

That was March 2009…Came March 2010…

Repeated the firm resolve:
During his visit to India in March 2010, Witty reiterated the same resolve with unequivocal clarity. When a Journalist from “The Economics Times” asked him, ‘There are concerns among some of your global peers about the patent and regulatory environment in this country. Are you concerned with the existing regulatory environment in India?’, Witty replied with his usual conviction and élan as follows:

“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an intellectual property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”

Is it a mere ‘lip service?’:
If you ask me, does this leader belong to a different genre? I shall reply with an emphatic ‘yes’. Andrew Witty seems to be indeed ‘walking the talk’ and is understandably quite capable of thinking much beyond of pleasing ‘The Wall Street’ and the likes of it, just with quarter to quarter business performance and ‘guidance’. He thinks about the patients both rich and poor. There are no reasons to doubt this patient-centric noble intent, Nor does it appear to me as a mere ‘lip service’.

One can interpret a ‘one-off statement’ made by any global pharma CEO in a way that one would like to. However, repetition of the same statement time and again in different counties possibly reflects nothing but firm resolves of a young visionary, determined to translate the same into reality with unprecedented courage.

Conclusion:
This iconic CEO, I reckon, is doing no charity or philanthropy with his path breaking vision, as those are not certainly the purpose of any business. Neither should one do charity or philanthropy with shareholders’ money and without their clear consent. Andrew Witty, in my view, perhaps is in the same page as with the management Guru C.K. Prahalad, who first postulated, now an oft repeated hypothesis, ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’.
Witty, as I have been witnessing, has already demonstrated his prowess with the traditional pharmaceutical global business model, in a comparative yardstick. Now professionally equipped with a strong pharmaceutical marketing background, honed over so many years, I am sure, Andrew will succeed even more in curving out a lion’s share of the global pharmaceutical business for his company, in the long run, creating a win-win situation for much over six billion global people, including a vast majority of the ailing, poor, neglected, hungry and marginalized population of the world.
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.

The Union Budget 2010-11…the issue of improving access to healthcare…encouraging innovation… and beyond

Posted on by
Reply

The Primary role of the pharmaceutical industry in India, like in many other countries of the world, is to make significant contribution to the healthcare objectives of the nation by meeting the needs of the ailing patients through improved access to modern medicines.

This role could be fulfilled primarily in the three following ways through Public Private Partnership initiatives:

1. By improving the healthcare infrastructure and the healthcare delivery systems
2. By creating a favorable echo system for developing newer innovative medicines through R&D initiatives in the country
3. By taking policy measures towards a robust healthcare financing system for all strata of our society

Improving access to modern medicines:

In the Union Budget 2010–11, the Finance Minister has proposed an increase in allocation towards healthcare from Rs. 19,354 Crore to Rs. 22,300 Crore. It is expected that a significant part of this increased allocation will be utilized in improving healthcare infrastructure and delivery systems, in the country.

Moreover, extension of ‘Tax Holiday’ for hospitals set-up in rural areas from 5 to 10 years, is expected to encourage development of rural healthcare infrastructure. The Finance Minister has also proposed that ‘Tax Holiday’ will be available for hospitals set-up even outside rural areas.

The proposal for extension of health insurance to NREGA beneficiaries is also expected to have a positive impact in improving access to modern medicines within this sector of the population.

It is my strong belief that currently, improving access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular along with encouraging innovation, should be the top-priorities of our policy makers. High incidence of mortality and morbidity burden in a country like ours can only be addressed through such priority measures. It is believed that Indian Pharmaceutical Industry would always remain committed to actively support all such efforts from all corners to help achieving this objective.

Encouraging innovation:

The budgetary proposal of enhancement of scope of weighted deduction on expenditure incurred on in-house R&D to 200% and the same on payments made to national laboratories, research associations, colleges, universities and other institutions for scientific research to 175%, are welcome steps.

However, in my view only the above steps are not adequate enough to properly encourage innovation within the country. Ongoing efforts in Research & Development (R&D) would require a robust national policy environment that would encourage, protect and reward innovation. Improving healthcare environment in partnership with the Government remains a priority for the pharmaceutical industry in India.

Despite progress made over the past decades in developing new medicines for some acute and chronic illnesses by both the Indian pharmaceutical companies and R&D organizations, innovation, like in other developed countries, still remains critically important in the continuous and ever complex battle between disease and good health in India.

Other encouraging budget proposals:

The following proposals of the Finance Minister are also expected to benefit the Industry:

- An annual Health Survey to prepare the District Health Profile of all districts in 2010-11

- Uniform concessional basic duty of 5% for all medical appliances and exemption of import duty from specified inputs for the manufacture of orthopedic implants, are good initiatives.

- Reduction of Corporate surcharge from 10% to 7.5%, though corporate Minimum Alternate Tax has gone up to 18%

- Tax incentives for the business of setting up and operating “Cold Chain” infrastructure, which is an integral part in the logistics for vaccines and many biotech products

- Under section 10B, extension of sunset clause is expected to benefit the Export Oriented Units (EOUs)

Adverse impact on affordability:

Some steps taken in the Union budget may have major impact on the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, which are as follows:

• Goods and Service Tax (GST) coming in April 1, 2011 and Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) hiked to 18% could prompt restructuring of ‘supply chain’ of many companies

• Increase in fuel prices and withdrawal of ‘Service Tax’ exemption on transportation of goods by rail, could make pharmaceutical products more expensive.

The Union Budget 2010–11, which has been largely hailed as a good budget across the industry, unfortunately does not propose much in terms of major fiscal and policy measures for the pharmaceutical industry.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, going beyond the budgetary expectations, the pharmaceutical industry in India should keep focusing on good corporate governance. This encompasses adherence to high ethical standards in clinical trials and in promotion of medicines, regulatory and legal compliance, being harsh on corrupt practices, addressing all issues that support good healthcare policies of the Government and takes care of the healthcare needs of the common man through inclusive business growth.

It is obvious that the Pharmaceutical Industry alone will have a limited role to play to address all the healthcare issues of the country. Important stakeholders like the Government, Corporates and the civil society in general must contribute according to their respective abilities, obligations and enlightened societal interests, towards this direction.

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.

Does the Indian Patents Act conform to Article 27 (Patentable Subject Matter) of TRIPS on the issue of ‘local working of patents’?

Posted on by
Reply

India is one of the signatories of TRIPS and has a national commitment on adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed that the amended Indian Patents Act will be TRIPS compliant.

A recent circular from CGPTD:

Recently, the Controller General of Patents, Trademarks and Designs (CGPTD) of India through a circular dated December 24, 2009, directed all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Local Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act., Although this directive is again a statutory requirement, nevertheless it has given rise to many speculations in several quarters as to whether ‘importation’ of products patented in India, will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not.

The Last date for filing the information is March 31, 2010. Only history will tell us about the possible future impact of this notification.

What does Article 27.1 say in this regard?

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS, for which India is a signatory, indicates as follows on ‘local working of patents’:

“1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”

Thus as per Article 27.1 of TRIPS, if commercialization of a product patented in India, is done in India whether through imports or local manufacturing, will be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Does Section 83 B of the Indian Patents Act conform to Article 27.1 of TRIPS?
One observes, despite Article 27.1 of TRIPS agreement, section 83 (General principles applicable to working of patented inventions) of the Indian patents Act says the following:

“(b) that they (patents) are not granted merely to enable patentees to enjoy monopoly for the importation of the patented article.”

Thus the questions that will need to be answered now are as follows:
i. Does Section 83.b conform to TRIPS 27.1?

ii. If yes, how?

iii. If not, does it merit an amendment?

iv. If the issue goes for litigation, what could the Indian High Courts likely to interpret as ‘local working of patents’?

Could it give rise to any possibility to trigger ‘Compulsory Licensing (CL)’?

For ‘Compulsory Licensing’, Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act indicates the following:

“At any time after expiration of three years from the date of the grant of patent, any person interested may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory license on patent on ANY of the following grounds namely:

(a) that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention has not been satisfied, or

(b) that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonable affordable price, or

(c) that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India”

Once again, the answer to yet another question that all concerned will be interested to know is as follows:

i. What could possibly be the determinants for the India Patent Office (IPO) or High Courts to interpret, “available to the public at a reasonable affordable price?”

Conclusion:

If these two sets of questions could find conclusive answers, much of the speculations, which are now floating around on what could the information provided through ‘Form 27’ be used or misused by the interested parties, to revoke a patent on the grounds of ‘local working’ or trigger a CL under Section 84.

In my personal view establishing either of these two grounds to the IPO to derive sheer commercial benefits, could indeed be a daunting task for any interested party.

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.