Tag Archives: on

The ‘Climate Change’ and its impact on ‘Public health’: is there anything in it that we can do ourselves?

Posted on by
Reply
The Lancet in its December 5, 12 and 19, 2009 issues published the following interesting studies:A. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: household energy
B. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport
C. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation
D. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture
E. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants
F. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makersThe findings of these studies clearly indicate that climate change is intimately linked to the global public health.

The key highlights:

1. In rural households (particularly in a developing country like India), if low carbon emission cooking stoves are used, the incidence of acute respiratory tract infections, chronic respiratory illnesses and even cardiac disorders can be brought down significantly.

2. For city transportation, increased usage of more fuel efficient or even hybrid vehicle will not be just enough to effectively reduce the greenhouse effect and improve public health. To achieve this some fundamental change in our life style and urban pedestrian infrastructure will be necessary rather than building more and more flyovers. Encouragement of ‘foot- and pedal-powered mobility’ could prove to be more useful for specific public health benefits, which could come in terms of reductions of cardiovascular disease by around 20%, in addition to reduced incidence of depression, dementia and diabetes.

3. The civil society would require putting more efforts to burn less of fossil fuels and increase in production of cleaner energy through solar and wind power to substantially improve the quality of air that we breathe.

4. In areas of agriculture and food production, initiatives like lesser usage of fossil fuel, innovative usage of manure, reduced livestock production and intensive programs of carbon capture could significantly lower the impact of climate change on public health.

“A 30% fall in the adult consumption of saturated fat from animal sources would reduce heart disease in the population by around 15% in the UK and by 16% in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. If the study had used additional health outcomes such as obesity and diet-related cancers, the health gains might have been even more substantial”, the Lancet highlighted.

The studies further indicated, “Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibilities of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.”

India perspective:

‘Climatico national first assessment report’ of March 8, 2009 makes important observations on the general trends between national policies to understand how climate policy is developing in the major greenhouse gas-emitting countries like, UK, EU, France, Germany, Canada, USA, Mexico, India, China, Indonesia, Japan, Australia.

Key findings of the report are as follows:

1. “A significant funding gap is appearing for adaptation, as developing country lack domestic resources and capacity and also appears unable to rely on international transfer mechanisms to meet their financing needs. It is at present unclear how adaptation will be effectively financed”.

2. “The financial crisis is allowing a mainstreaming of climate change into recovery packages, accelerating otherwise difficult shifts to low carbon growth in developed countries. However, the same crisis is causing a major slow down in projects that do not contribute to financial recovery”.

It has been reported that the above observations have prompted the Government of India to seek global cooperation both in terms of funding and technology to facilitate the capacity building exercise in these areas to effectively address all issues arising out of ‘climate change’.

Conclusion:

It has now been well accepted by the policy makers in India that there is a dire need to effectively address the critical public health issues related to global ‘climate change’. Based on the findings, as published in ‘The Lancet’, the Government of India should take appropriate collaborative measures to neutralize the adverse impact of ‘climate change’ on ‘public health’, sooner the better.

At the same time, let me hasten to add that there are many other measures, as stated earlier, which we all can take ourselves as a civil society in general and a responsible citizen in particular, to prevent this impending crisis.

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.

Recent global meet on climate change in Copenhagen: what were achieved and what were not.

Posted on by
Reply

Long before the commencement of Copenhagen climate change meet, many from all over the world started talking passionately about the “dangerous climate change”, which as we know deals with the issue of increase of global temperature of 2 degrees Celsius (2C) from the preindustrial level.

This issue was discussed at length in Copenhagen and an accord was ultimately announced on December 18, 2009 followed by a plenary session on December 19, 2009.

What does it say?

The Accord is a 12-paragraph document of statement of intents and non-binding pledges to address the “dangerous climate change” issues.

Towards this direction the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at Copenhagen recommended even to the developed countries of the world to reduce carbon emission from their respective 1990 level by not less than 25% by 2020, from when the global carbon emission is expected to start declining.

USA and China were the key partners of IPCC with a strong supporting role played by Brazil, South Africa and India to have an accord that suits the emerging large developing economies of the world. The accord though recommends to the developed countries, barring the US, to ensure their carbon emission cuts, but not under the Kyoto Protocol. Most influential 26 countries of the world agreed with this accord and other 192 countries, though appeared to be unhappy in the plenary session, accepted the same with their ‘silence’, which perhaps means indirect consent.

The key points of the accord:

The main points of the Copenhagen Accord are as follows:

• Cooperation by all in containing emissions within 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

• To reduce carbon emission, the developing nations will report in every two years on their non-binding voluntary actions. This report will be subject to international consultations and analysis.

• US $ 10 billion each year will be financed by the developed countries for a three-year program to pay for the projects taken up by the poorer nations to develop clean energy and effectively address drought and other climate-change impacts.

• A goal of mobilizing US $ 100 billion per year by 2020 was also set for achieving the same objectives.

Is this accord a triumph of USA or China or the BASIC countries?

This accord is seen by some as a triumph of the USA to influence the ultimate outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit. US President Barack Obama, in fact, brought back the negotiation from the brink of collapse, at the last minute, through hectic negotiation with the heads of states of Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC countries).

What will the success of the summit depend upon?

The success of this accord will depend on whether the USA will be able to live up to its promises to reduce carbon emissions in their own country and help other countries to address the same by raising billions of dollars.

BASIC countries, especially China, emerged stronger:

The process of this accord also witnessed China coming stronger leveraging their clout in a multilateral forum of the African continent, which is very rich in various valuable natural resources. However, many other less powerful nations, as said earlier, felt left out in this deal brokered mainly by the US initiative and interest.

Thus even after reaching the accord, at the plenary session on the last Saturday, a large number of speakers from the developing nations sharply criticized the deal alleging it as a pact meant only for the rich and BASIC countries.

Lack of a clear roadmap:

Be that as it may, without a clear road map for research and development of low-carbon technologies and no binding collective carbon emission target, achieving 2C by 2020 still remains a pipe dream.

Conclusion:

After the Copenhagen Accord, Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC), the four large emerging economies of the world, were immensely successful to display their joint muscle power to the world as a whole, clearly emerging as a major combined force to reckon with, especially by the developed nations of the world lead by the USA.

However, many will strongly feel that interests of smaller and poorer nations of the world were sacrificed in this first global agreement of the century on climate change at Copenhagen.

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 relevance of the Indian version of the Bayh-Dole Act – the country needs all stakeholders’ open debate on the proposed bill.

Posted on by
Reply
The Bayh-Dole Act is an American legislation, which was originally sponsored by two US senators named Birch Bayh and Bob Dole. This Act deals with Intellectual Property (IP) arising out of US government funding. Bayh-Dole Act is also known as University and Small Business Patent Procedure Act. In December 12, 1980 this was enacted into a law by the US Congress.
What it does:
Under this Act, IP rights over government funded inventions for further development, license to other parties or direct commercialization are transferred to the universities and small businesses operating with government contracts. The government though retains its right to license the invention to any third party without any consent from the IP right owner or the licensee, if it feels that on a reasonable basis the public is being denied of the benefits of the invention.

The Indian version of the Bayh-Dole Act:

The Utilization of the Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008, which has been formulated in line with the US Bayh-Dole Act, has already been approved by the Union Cabinet of India. This bill ensures both utilization and protection of the IP arising out of government funded research initiatives. Currently government funded academic institutions and research institutes cannot commercialize the inventions.

The proposed bill will not only allow them to patent such inventions but will also reward the inventors and the institutes with a share of its commercialization proceeds as per specific guidelines.
The bill has attracted a mixed response from the stake holders.

The relevance of Bayh-Dole Act in India:

Relevance of Indian version of the Bayh-Doll Bill in the post product patent regime in India is
significant. The core concept of the bill encourages innovation and ensures protection of patents and other forms of IP rights of the government funded R&D outcomes, where the owner of the intellectual property will be the government grant receipients or the government.

This bill is expected to offer to various research institutions, universities, small businesses and non-profit organizations, the IP rights on their inventions, resulted from the government funding. Overall environment towards innovation within the country is expected to get a boost in that process.

Is the ownership and protection of R&D a real remedy to make government academic institutions and universities self sustainable?

This is certainly not the only remedy, but an important one. This process will have significant potential to effectively facilitate technology transfer from government funded research laboratories or universities to the user industry to make these establishments self-sustainable.

What are the main implications of the bill if enacted in its current form?

Although the fine prints of the bill are not yet clearly known, the bill in its current form raises more questions than answers. Some of the concerns with the bill in its current form are as follows:

- This law could effectively transfer the decision making process about
publications of the research papers from the researchers and academia to
the bureaucrats in the government establishments, making the R&D
environment quite stifling for the researchers and the initiative
counterproductive.

- Academia at times will be compelled to incur significant expenditures
towards different types of IPR related litigation, which could have been
otherwise productively spent by these institutions towards research
initiatives.

- The learning and research may get transformed into another kind of
businesses activity, as such a law could change the research focus on to
the issues, which will be of greater commercial interest to various
industries and will offer immediate financial benefits to the
institutions. As a result vital non-commercial research, which could be of
critical interest to the nation as such, may take a back seat.

Conclusion:

The country will therefore need an extensive public debate on this bill, which has not taken place, as yet. The loose knots of the bill need to be tightened and the concerns of the stakeholders need to be adequately addressed before its enactment into a law.

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.

Concerted action by all stakeholders on counterfeit medicines is the need of the hour.

Posted on by
Reply
The concern of some section of the stakeholders that IPR is being extended to the definition of counterfeit medicines, in my view, is misplaced. As even in India, ‘misbranding’ though an integral part of IPR, is considered as a public health issue and is an offence under Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts, 1940.Currently, the magnitude of this problem is anybody’s guess. Earlier a study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and conducted by SEARPharm reported that only 0.3% drugs were spurious and 3% of drugs were counterfeits. To scientifically assess the magnitude of this problem the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) India, for the first time ever, has initiated a study with 61 popular brands from nine therapeutic categories for testing 24000 samples. The study is expected to cost Rs.50 million and is expected to be published, soon.However, on the above study, Pharmabiz dated August 26, 2009 has reported the following:

“The Union Health Ministry’s ambitious nationwide survey to get an authentic estimate of spurious drugs in the country found no significant amount of spurious drugs in the pharmaceutical market. Among the 24,000 samples collected by the government for the survey, only around 10 were found to be spurious, it is reliably learnt.”

India being a part of ‘International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce’ (IMPACT), established under WHO in 2006, decided to work together to combat the growing menace of counterfeit medicines. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) was reported to have several discussions with the convenor of the IMPACT to effectively address the issue.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits. In South East Asia, estimated prevalence of counterfeit Artesunate for malaria is 33-53%.

It appears that in all those countries where access to modern medicines is poor, incidences of counterfeit medicines, ranging from anti-malarial, anti-hypertensive, anti-tubercular, anti-retroviral to cardiovascular and other life saving and life style drugs, are higher.

Apprehensions from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry that attempts are being made by the interested groups to bring generic drugs under the purview of counterfeit medicines, is unfounded. Why should there be any such threat at all, when the world is witnessing the global pharmaceutical companies scaling up their generic business operations?

Incidence like recent detention in transit of DRL shipment of the generic version of Losartan in the Netherlands or a consignment of Amoxicillin at the Frankfurt airport on the ground of patent infringement cannot be considered as attempts of MNCs to brand Indian generic pharmaceuticals as counterfeit medicines. These drugs violated valid patents held in those countries prompting the local authorities to enforce the law of the land by detaining those consignments. India also has been detaining similar consignments for Nepal whenever those transit consignments violated the intellectual property laws of India. It will, therefore, be not fair to expect Netherlands or Germany to follow a different set of rules for goods in transit, when Indian law itself defines ‘imports’ covering goods in ‘transit’. Thus Government of India should take up this issue on a bilateral platform with the European Union (EU) for a desirable resolution to the problem. Meanwhile, to ensure that pharmaceuticals exports from India do not get adversely affected, Indian pharmaceutical exporters should ensure, till such issues are bilaterally resolved, that their export consignments for third countries transit through non EU routes.

Further, the incidence of fake drugs seized recently with made in India label and originating from China is indeed a fraudulent and criminal action of some irresponsible people who bring disgrace to humanity. Such incidences must be strongly condemned and be taken up by the Government India with the Chinese authorities effectively, to stop recurrence of such criminal activities in future.

The sales of counterfeit medicines across the world as estimated by the ‘Centre for Medicine in Public Interest’ will reach US$75 billion by end of 2010. This is an increase of over 90% as compared to 2005. A report from the WHO’s Executive Board in its 124th session indicated that the detection of counterfeit medicines in 2007 had increased to more than 1,500. This reflects an increase of around 20% over 2006 and ten times more compared to year 2000.

WHO indicated that in 2005-06 the volume of counterfeit drug seizures included 2.7 million articles and the main countries where these articles originated from India: 31%, UAE: 31% and China: 20%.

Enough data are available to establish that counterfeit drugs are posing a growing menace to the humanity. All stakeholders should join hands to address this public health issue, leaving aside petty commercial interests, be it generic pharmaceutical companies or research based pharmaceutical companies, across the world and India is no exception. Otherwise, thugs and criminals who are involved in this illicit trade of manufacturing and distributing counterfeit medicines at the cost of the innocent patients, will keep remaing almost scot free, forever.

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 Government of India accepts the Mashelkar Committee Report on ‘Incremental Innovation’ – what does it really mean?

Posted on by
Reply
‘The Mashelkar Committee’ re-submitted its report in March 2009, which primarily deals with incremental innovation related to Pharmaceuticals Research.The conclusion of the report on the incremental innovation reads as follows:“It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a ‘statutory exclusion of a field of technology”.

Government accepts the Mashelkar committee Report:

It has now been reported that the Government has accepted this revised report, last week. With this the questions raised in the raging debate, whether incremental innovation is TRIPS compliant or not have possibly been answered well, beyond any further doubt.

The acceptance of this report by the Government further vindicates the point that all patentable innovations are not “eureka type” or “path breaking”. Innovation is rather a continuous process and more so in pharmaceuticals. Such type of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is quite similar to what one observes in the IT industry, where incremental innovation based on existing knowledge is more a norm than an exception. With incremental innovation not just efficacy of a product, but many other important unmet needs of the patients like safety, convenience and ease of administration of the drugs can be successfully met.

Thus innovations whether “path breaking” or “incremental” in nature, need to be encouraged and will deserve patent protection, if they are novel, have followed inventive steps and are industrially applicable or useful.

R&D based Indian Pharmaceutical industry gains considerably:

Many Indian Pharmaceutical Companies have already started working on the ‘incremental innovation’ model. Appropriate amendment of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005 will thus help all concerned – the patients, the industry and other stakeholders, as long as the prices of such medicines do not become unaffordable to majority of the population for various reasons. In any case, the Government has the law available within the patents Act to deal with any such situation, if arises at all.

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

Mashelkar committee categorically observes the following:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”, as stated above.

2. “Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Thus, taking these recommendations together will the DIPP now finally conclude that Section 3(d) of the Patent Acts 2005 is not TRIPS compliant and recommend necessary amendments, accordingly to satisfy the needs of the Research based pharmaceutical industry?

Wait a minute – wait a minute:

The report also suggests:

1. “The Technical Experts Group (TEG) was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d ) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself with these issues.”

Will this comment make the Government conclude that Section 3(d) is TRIPS compliant, which includes ‘incremental innovation’ in general, however, with the rider of ‘properties related to significant improvement in efficacy’?

2. “Every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India”.

What will these efforts mean and how will these be implemented by the Government?

3. The TEG also recommends, “every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘ever greening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product. The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits. Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept in the light of the foregoing discussion (paras 5.6 – 5.8 and paras 5.12 – 5.29) above of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Will the Government (mis)interpret it as a vindication of Section 3(d), which does does not mean “statutory exclusion of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability” but has just made necessary provision within this section “to prevent the practice of ‘ever greening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product”, as recommended by the Mashelkar Committee?

Conclusion:

In the re-submitted report of the Mashelkar committee, the TEG has made quite a few very profound comments, recommendations and suggestions, the implications of all of which are important to all the stakeholders in various different ways. Will the acceptance of this report, as a whole, by the Government and subsequent attempt by the authorities for its implementation both in the letter and spirit, will amount to “chasing a rainbow”, as it were?

Only time will us, how this “satisfy all” zig-saw-puzzle gets solved in future.

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.

Biosimilars –Indian Pharmaceutical Companies are sharpening their focus on fast growing Oncology segment

Posted on by
Reply
The global market for Bio-pharmaceuticals is estimated to be around US$ 50 billion by the next year. Currently about 25% of New Molecular Entities (NMEs) under development are of biotech origin. Indian pharmaceutical majors like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Reliance Life Science, Shantha Biotech, Ranbaxy, Biocon, Wockhardt and Glenmarkhave made good investments in biotech drugs manufacturing facilities keeping an eye on the emerging opportunities with Biosimilar drugs in the developed markets of the world.
Regulatory pathway for Biosimilar drugs:
Already a regulatory pathway for Biosimilar drugs exists in the European Union (EU). In the USA President Barak Obama administration has already expressed its clear intention to have similar pathway established in the country through the US-FDA, which is expected to come by the end of this year.

Steps taken by the Indian pharmaceutical companies towards this direction:

Copycat version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body, and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF. Meanwhile Biocon of Bangalore has commenced clinical trial of Insugen for the regulated markets like EU. All these initiatives are being taken in India.

On the other hand Glenmark is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2010 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Within Biopharmaceuticals the focus is on Oncology:

Within Biopharmaceuticals many of these domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area, which is estimated to be the largest segment with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by 2010 growing over 17%. As per recent reports about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology with global pharmaceutical majors’ sharp R&D focus and research spend on this particular therapy area. Thus about 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched in the global markets by 2015.

Indian market for oncology products:

Current size of the Indian oncology market is US$ 18.6 million, which is expected to be over US$ 50 million by the end of 2010; the main reason being all these are and will be very expensive products. Biocon has just launched its monoclonal antibodybased drug BIOMAb-EGFR for treating solid tumours with an eye to introduce this product in the western markets, as soon as they can get regulatory approval from these countries. Similarly, Ranbaxy with its strategic collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is planning to market oncology products in various markets of the world like Brazil, Mexico, CIS and Russia.

Conclusion:

From the available information it appears that many Indian domestic pharmaceutical companies are now poised to leverage their R&D initiatives on Biosimilars. Oncologies being one of the fastest growing therapy segments, sharp focus on this area is indeed a step in the right 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.

‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’ project of DoP is a great idea – is it on course?

Posted on by
Reply
In mid 2008 The Government of India created a new department, ‘The Department of Pharmaceuticals’ (DoP), under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers. The new department came out with its following vision statement:“To enable Indian pharmaceuticals industry to play a leading role in the global market and to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices within the country, of good quality pharmaceuticals of mass consumption.”‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’:

In this article, I shall submit my point of view on the second part of the above vision statement, which articulated the responsibility of the department to ensure availability of affordable modern medicine for ‘mass consumption’.

When over 70% of Indian population lives in rural areas, one can quite easily assume that such medicines will be available adequately in rural areas of the country, as well. Obviously the question that follows this admirable vision statement is how?

To respond to this question one will try to address the following two basic strategic issues:

1. Create a workable and viable business model, which can be gradually developed over a period
of time to deliver the promise

2. Create a robust supply chain network to ensure easy access of these medicines to the common
man, located even in remote rural areas.

The first part of the strategic issue has been well addressed by the DoP, within a very short period, by creating ‘Jan Aushadhi’, the medicines for the masses. Importantly, the second point, which will determine the success of the project, has not been clearly articulated.

The objectives of the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ were stated as follows:

1. To promote awareness for cost effective quality generic medicines. (However, how exactly this will be done, is yet to be known.)

2. To make available unbranded affordable quality generic medicines through private public partnership (PPP). (I support this objective from procurement perspective. However, so far as the delivery of these medicines to the common man is concerned, I would argue below:why do we reinvent the wheel?)

3. To encourage doctors in the Government Hospitals to prescribe such cost effective quality
generic medicines. (This is again just a statement of intent without considering the critical issue of its implementation in the predominantly branded generic market, like India.)

4. To help patients save significantly towards medicine cost with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets.

5. A national help line is believed to be able to increase awareness level of this initiative.

The statements of intent of the DoP also highlight that the State Governments, NGOs and Charitable bodies will be encouraged to set up such generic medicine shops. It also states that the existing outlets of the Government and NGOs may also be used for this cause.

This particular decision of DoP, as I stated before, appears to be an attempt to ‘re-invent the wheel’, as it were. I shall argue on this subject, very shortly.

An open ended launch plan with inadequate market penetration compared to set objectives:

DoP announced that this scheme will be launched gradually in all the districts of India in four phases. However, for some unknown reasons, besides phase one and two, the other two phases of the launch plan have been kept by the department, as open ended as it could be, despite the Government of India’s having all wherewithals to implement this scheme with a reasonable degree of preciseness.

The four phases were decided as follows:

1. Phase 1: Amritsar Civil Hospital in November 8, 2008

2. Phase 2: Few stores in Delhi, National Capital Region (NCR), district hospitals in Mohali,
Ludhiana, Bhatinda and Jalandhar by February 28, 2009

3. Phase 3: Other districts of Punjab and some other states to be covered during 2009 and
2010

4. Phase 4: Remaining districts of the country by 2010 and 2012

I am not surprised that with such vague launch plan and an open ended timeline, the Government seems to have faltered in Phase 2 itself, when it could not go beyond Amritsar and Shastri Bhavan, Delhi outlets, by February, 28, 2009.

Arguing for the need of a course correction:

Despite being a hardcore optimist, I now get a vague feeling that the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP may not ultimately be able to achieve its cherished goals and may remain just as another good intention of the Government of India, if a course correction is not made at this stage.

The key barrier to improve access to affordable quality generic medicine to the common man, in this particular case, is not conceptualization of a project. We all know that our Government is reasonably good at it, with a good number of brilliant minds working to give a shape to it. The main weakness to translate this laudable idea into reality, in my view, falls well within the general weakness of the Government in visualizing the key barriers to the project and at the same time missing out on some of the key drivers for the same.

In this case, there seems to be some flaw in the ‘ideation’ stage of the project, as well. This flaw lies with the plan of its delivery mechanism involving state government, NGOs and various other bodies.

If procurement of cost effective quality generic medicines is not an issue, then the DoP should carefully look within the Government system to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man.

Two grossly underutilized Government controlled ‘mass delivery systems’:

The Government of India has two very unique product distribution and delivery systems within the country with deep penetration from metro cities to even far off rural areas. These two Government owned supply and delivery chains are as follows:

1. Public Distribution System (PDS) for food grains and other essential commodities (Ration shops).

2. Indian Post Offices

Like food grains, medicines are also essential items. Why then DoP not collaborate with PDS to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man?

Similarly, when postal department are collaborating with various other agencies to sell and distribute many types of products in rural areas, why not DoP consider this alternative, as well?

In fact, I would strongly recommend usage of both PDS and Post Offices by the DoP for deeper penetration of such medicines especially for the benefit of those 650 million people of India who do not have any access to affordable modern medicines.

I am aware, the question of ‘in-efficiency’ of these systems may be raised by many in India. However, at the end of the day who is responsible to make these systems efficient? People responsible for managing a system or process are usually held accountable for its ‘efficiency’ or ‘inefficiency’.

We have many excellent minds in the DoP, I hope, they may wish to explore the possibility of effectively utilizing these two already available state controlled mass distribution systems to ensure success of the project “Jan Ausadhi” – “Medicines for the common man”.

It is worth noting that this project seems to have already started limping with its vague execution plan and a delivery system, the scaling up of which to ensure access to one billion population of our country could be a serious question mark.

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.