Tag Archives: Patients

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

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

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

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

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

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

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

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

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

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

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

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

An opposite view:

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

  • Money
  • Time
  • Risk

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

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.

‘Empowered Patients’: The changing dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry

Posted on by
Reply

In good old days, at the time of someone falling sick in the family, a friendly local general medical practitioner, who was also known as a ‘family doctor’, used to be called to provide relief to the patient from pain and agony of the ailment.

Thorough knowledge of the patient’s medical history gained over a period of time, of these almost vanishing breed of caring doctors, was very common and used to come very handy to them while treating the patients. Their smiling or at times admonishing look at the patients for falling sick due to avoidable reasons, a caring approach – just like or even more than a family member and willingness to answer all questions related to sickness, used to instill a great confidence and hope in the minds of the patients for getting well soon, quite often even before the treatment had started.

Today the situation is very different. The concept of a family doctor mostly does no longer exist, even in the urban families of India. Though the elite groups belonging to the creamy layer of the society still talk in terms of ‘my dentist’ – ‘my cardiologist’ – ‘my physician’, patients by and large have started experiencing that their healthcare needs have been greatly compromised.

However in future, may not exactly be like a ’family doctor’, one can perhaps hope to call a doctor home for treatment in India, which will not cost a bomb as it happens today. ‘Times Of India’’, January 18, 2012 edition reports that “IIM-A student to deliver doctors at your door step.” This service is expected to provide both doctors and medicines at our doorstep at a phone call.”

Changing doctor-patient relationship:

The doctor–patient relationship has undergone a vast change over a period of time. The healthcare environment now very often smacks of commercial gain and loss of the service providers.

In India, even recently the government had to intervene to help restoring the ethical standards of both the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry. That said, medical ethics and compliance, for all practical purpose, are still confined mostly in the text books, codes or in the carefully crafted ‘Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)’ as a ‘show piece’, as it were, more for bending them at the least possible opportunity for hard commercial gains, rather than their conformance in terms of both letter and the spirit.

Individual ‘Patient Empowerment’:

Under the prevailing scenario, the civil society should encourage individual ‘Patient Empowerment’ by making him/her understand how the healthcare system is currently working on the ground, what and who are the key obstacles in getting a reasonably decent healthcare support and what should be done to uproot these obstacles in civilized ways.

It started in America:

The movement for ‘Patient Empowerment’ started in America in the 70’s, which asserts that for truly healthy living, one should get engaged in transforming the social situation and environment affecting their lives, demanding a greater say in their treatment process and observing the following tenets:

  • Patients’ choice and lifestyle cannot be dictated by others.
  • ‘Patient empowerment’ is necessary even for preventive medicines to be effective.
  • Patients, just like any other consumers, have the right to make their own choices.

The ‘Empowered Patient’ should always play the role of a participating partner in the healthcare process.

The essence of ‘Patient Empowerment’:

‘Natural Health Perspective’ highlighted ‘Patient Empowerment’ as follows:

  • Health, as an attitude, can be defined as being successful in coping with pain, sickness, and death. Successful coping always requires being in control of one’s own life.
  • Health belongs to the individual and the individuals have the prime responsibility for their own health.
  • The individual’s capacity for growth and self-determination is paramount.
  • Healthcare professionals cannot empower people; only people can empower themselves.

‘Patient empowerment’ prompts the ‘Patient-Centric’ postures:

In today’s world, the distrust of patients on the healthcare system, pharmaceutical companies and the drug regulators, is growing all over the world. This situation makes an ‘Empowered Patient’ resolve to actively participate in his/her medical treatment process.

Other stakeholders will have no other option but to take a ‘Patient-Centric’ posture, under the circumstances, which has already started happening. In India, as ‘out-of-pocket’ healthcare expenses are skyrocketing in the absence of a comprehensive and affordable universal health  coverage, ‘Empowered Patients’ will increasingly demand to know more of not only the available treatment choices, but also about the medicine prescription options.

‘Patient empowerment’ as the change agent:

Not so long ago, to generate increasing prescription demand and influence the prescription decision of the doctors, the pharmaceutical players used to provide product information to the medical profession through various persuasive means of the sales forces along with samples and a variety gifts, besides meeting their unmet needs with innovative medicines.

The above approach though still working very well in India, is no longer fetching the desired results to the pharmaceutical companies, especially in the developed markets of the world. ‘Empowered Patients’ have already started demanding much more from the pharma players. As a result, many global companies are now cutting down on their sales force size to try to move away from just hard selling by gaining more time from the doctors.  They have started taking new initiatives to open up a chain of direct communication with their primary and secondary customers with an objective to know more about them to satisfy them better.

In future with growing ‘Patient Empowerment’ the basic sales and marketing models of the pharmaceutical companies are expected to undergo a radical change. At that time, so called  ‘Patient-Centric’ companies of today will have no choice but to walk the talk. Consequently, they will have to willy-nilly switch from the ‘hard-selling mode’ to a new process of achieving business excellence through constant endeavor to satisfy both the expressed and the un-expressed needs of the patients, not just with innovative products, but more with innovative and caring services.

Role of ‘Empowered Patients’ in healthcare decision making process:

In the years ahead, more and more ‘Empowered Patients’ are expected to play an important role in their healthcare decision making process, initially in the urban India, ensuring further improvement not just in the  public and private healthcare systems, but also in inviting the pharmaceutical industry to be a part of that changing process.

In the book titled, “The Empowered Patient: How to Get the Right Diagnosis, Buy the Cheapest Drugs, Beat Your Insurance Company, and Get the Best Medical Care Every Time”, Elizabeth Cohen articulated as follows:

“The facts are alarming. Medical errors kill more people each year than AIDS, breast cancer or car accidents. A doctor’s relationship with pharmaceutical companies may influence his choice of drugs for you. The wrong key word on an insurance claim can deny you coverage.”

‘USA Today’ dated August 31, 2010 in an article titled, “More empowered patients question doctors’ orders,” reported:

‘In the past, most patients placed their entire trust in the hands of their physician. Your doc said you needed a certain medical test, you got it. Not so much anymore.’

Unfortunately in India, the situation has not changed much as on date.

‘Empowered Patients’ can influence even the R&D process:

Reinhard Angelmar, the Salmon and Rameau Fellow in Healthcare Management and Professor of Marketing at INSEAD, was quoted saying that ‘Empowered Patients’ can make an impact even before the drug is available to them.

He cited instances of how the empowered breast cancer patients in the US played a crucial role not only in diverting funds from the Department of Defense to breast cancer research, but also in expediting the market authorization and improving market access of various other drugs.

Angelmar stated that ‘Empowered Patients’ of the UK were instrumental in getting NICE, their watchdog for cost-effectiveness of medicines, to change its position on the Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) drug Lucentis of Novartis and approve it for wider use than originally contemplated by them.

Meeting the challenge of change:

To respond to the challenge posed by the ‘Empowered Patients’ pharmaceutical companies, especially in the US are in the process of developing a more direct relationship with the patients (consumers). Creation of ‘Patient Empowered’ social networks may help to address this issue effectively.

For example, to respond to this challenge of change companies like, Novo Nordisk is developing a vibrant patient community named ‘Juvenation’, which is a peer-to-peer social group of individuals suffering from Type 1 diabetes. This program was launched by the company in November 2008 and now the community has over 16,000 members, as available in its ‘Facebook’ page.

To cite one more example, Becton, Dickinson and Co. created a web-based patient-engagement initiative called “Diabetes Learning Center” for the patients, not just to describe the causes of diabetes, but also to explain its symptoms and complications. From the website a patient can also learn how to inject insulin, along with detailed information about blood-glucose monitoring. They can even participate in interactive quizzes, download educational literature and learn through animated demonstrations about diabetes-care skills.

Some other Pharmaceutical Companies, who are in the process of engaging with the customers through social media like Twitter, are Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Roche and Merck.

Conclusion:

Since so many years from now, especially in the developed countries of the world, pharmaceutical companies have been talking about being ‘Patient-Centric’ to ride squarely the increasingly powerful tide of ‘Patient Empowerment’ in their endeavor to satisfy the assertive demands of the new generation of healthcare consumers – the patients or the patient groups.

However, in many cases the prevailing healthcare provisions, the structure and culture together with stiff resistance of the regulators to let the industry engage directly with the patients, have inhibited the ‘Patient-Centric’ intent of the stakeholders in general, to take off the ground in a meaningful way.

At the same time, the aggressive marketing focus of the pharmaceutical industry and blatant commercialization of the system by the healthcare professionals, have more often than not failed to translate the good intent of ‘Patient-Centric’ healthcare process into reality.

Increasing general awareness and rapid access to information on diseases, products and the cost-effective treatment processes through internet, in addition to fast communication within the patients/groups through social media like, ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ by more and more patients, I reckon, are expected to show the results of ‘Patient Empowerment’ initiatives… ultimately.

By: Tapan J Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Does branding of generic drugs offer value to the patients in India?

Posted on by
Reply

It appears that the government has accepted the submission of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ made to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, recommending prescription of medicines by their generic names.

It has now been reported that the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) has already considered the proposal to amend the rules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India for approval of all drug formulations containing single active ingredient only in the generic names by the State Licensing Authorities. The proposal to publish the draft rules has been forwarded to the Ministry of Health for necessary approval. The Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) will be kept out of the purview of this amendment.

This recommendation of the  ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’  appears to be based on the premises that the ‘Brand Building’ exercise of the generic drugs in India, includes ‘very high sales and marketing expenditure’, which  can easily be eliminated to make medicines available to the common man at much cheaper prices. ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the Government is often cited as an example to drive home this point.

This recommendation, on the face of it, makes immense sense. However, the moot question remains, “Is it a practical proposition to implement in India?”

The generics and the branded-generic drugs and their value proposition: As we know generic name is the actual chemical name of a drug. The brand name is selected by the producer of a formulation and is built on various differential value parameters for its proper position in the minds of health professionals as well as the patients. Thus, brand names offer a specific identity to a chemical name in their value proposition.

Some other countries are also taking similar steps:

Just to cite an example, as reported by ‘The Guardian” on August 23, 2011, the Spanish government recently enacted a law compelling the doctors of Spain to prescribe generic drugs rather than more expensive patented and branded pharmaceuticals, wherever available. This move is expected to help the Spanish government to save €2.4 billion (£2.1billion) a year, as in Spain the drugs are partly reimbursed by the government.

As a result, the doctors in Spain will now have to prescribe only in the generic or chemical names of the respective drugs. Consequently the pharmacies will be obliged to dispense ‘the cheapest available versions of drugs, which will frequently mean not the better-known brand names sold by the big drugs firms’.

Quality standards of both generic and branded generic drugs are no different:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India requires all generic or branded generic drugs to have the same quality and performance. Thus when a generic drug is approved by the drug regulator, one should logically accept that it has met the required standards with respect to identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. It is not uncommon that there could be some variability taking place during manufacturing process for both branded generic and generic drugs and for that matter it is applicable to all drugs. However, all formulations of both types of these drugs manufactured by different manufacturers do not need to contain the same inactive ingredients.

In any case, all formulations of both generic and branded drugs must be shown to be bioequivalent to the reference drugs with similar blood levels to the respective reference products. Regulators even in the USA believe that if blood levels are the same, the therapeutic effect will be the same.

A recent study:

As reported by the US FDA, ‘A recent study evaluated the results of 38 published clinical trials that compared cardiovascular generic drugs to their brand-name counterparts. There was no evidence that brand-name heart drugs worked any better than generic heart drugs. [Kesselheim et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21)2514-2526]‘.

Prescriptions for generic medicines were a record high in America in 2010:

As per published reports, last year i.e in 2010, generic medicines accounted for more than 78%  of the total prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and long-term care facilities in the US. This is a record high and is four percentage points more than what it was in 2009 and came up from 63% as recorded in 2006.

Points to ponder and resolve in the current Indian situation:

While the intention of the Government is indeed good, some practical issues must be considered before its implementation, which are as follows:

1. Increased chances of error while dispensing:

Chemical names of medicines are complex. In case of any mistake of dispensing the wrong drug by the chemist inadvertently, the patients could face serious consequences.

2. There could be differences even within single ingredient formulations:

Different brands of even single ingredient medicines may have inherent differences in their formulations like, in the drug delivery systems (controlled/sustained release), kind of coatings allowing dissolution in different parts of alimentary canal, dispersible or non-dispersible tablets, chewable or non-chewable tablets etc. Since doctors are best aware of their patients’ conditions, they may wish to prescribe a specific type of formulation based on specific conditions of the patients, which may not be possible by prescribing only in generic names.

3. Price differences between branded generics and generic generics may not exist:

It is intriguing to fathom, just for a switch over from the brand name to the generic name how will the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a single ingredient formulation, bearing only the generic name, come down. Currently, MRPs printed on the product packs of generic formulations without any brand name, as available in the retail outlets, are similar to comparable branded generic formulations. In that case, what benefits that Government will expect a patient to get out of this well hyped change?

4. Manufacturers may switch from single ingredient formulations to FDCs:

There is a theoretical possibility that to retain brand names, the pharmaceutical companies may be encouraged to change their formulations from single ingredient to FDCs. In that situation, single ingredient formulations may not be available and comparable FDCs could cost more to the patients.

5. The key decision will shift from physicians to retail chemists:

The major issue with prescriptions by the chemical/generic names is that retail chemists will then be the sole decision makers to choose the prescribed product from within a whole lot of over 30 to 40 manufacturers for a particular product.

What then will prompt the retailers to buy, store and sell different generic formulations of various companies and what could possibly be the key selection criteria for such drugs by them?

I reckon, there could only be one criterion for the choice of such medicines by a chemist i.e. to select only those which will give them highest margin of profits.

In such a case, the ultimate decision making authority for the prescription medicines shifts from the physicians to the chemists. This could make the situation far worse for the patients.

In interest of the patients, it is, therefore, extremely important that the government, regulators, physicians, chemists and even the patients’ groups are aware of such risks and ensure that patients are not adversely impacted in any way.

Conclusion: Viewing purely from the Indian perspective, while the generic drugs per se are not bad for the patients, weighing all the above issues and possible risk factors against expected benefits, I reckon, without effectively addressing the above issues to start with, if the prescriptions of single ingredient formulations are made mandatory only in generic names, it could seriously jeopardize patients’ safety and interest.

In any case, when single ingredient formulations contribute just around 30% of the total prescriptions in India, how could then prescriptions of all single ingredient formulations only in generic names address the stated concern of the government, in a holistic way?

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.

Are Indian patients victims of “unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals and irrational use of drugs?” A perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some time, serious concerns have been expressed by the media, government and the civil society at large about the means adopted by the pharmaceutical industry in general to get their respective brands prescribed by the doctors and why do some of the doctors prescribe what they prescribe to the patients out of multiple available choices.
The MCI Guidelines:
Being concerned mainly by the media outcry, the Medical Council of India (MCI), a year ago, amended their related guidelines for the doctor, clearly articulating what they can and cannot do during their interaction and transaction with the pharmaceutical and related industries.
The Ministry of Health believes that these guidelines, if strictly enforced, would severely limit what the doctors can receive from the pharmaceutical companies in terms of free gifts of wide ranging financial values, entertainments, free visits to exotic locations under various commercial reasons, lavish lunch and dinner etc. in exchange of prescribing specific brands of the concerned companies more…more…and more.
“The Lancet” report:
Let me now combine this scenario with a recent report on India dated January 11, 2011, published in ‘The Lancet’, which states in a similar, though not the same context, as follows:
1. “Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.”
2. “Most people accessed private providers for outpatient care – 78% in rural areas and 81% in urban areas.”
3. “India’s private expenditure of nearly 80% of total expenditure on health was much higher than that in China, Sri Lanka and Thailand.”
Considering the above three critical issues of India, as reported by ‘The Lancet’, the need to follow a transparent code of pharmaceutical marketing practices by the entire pharmaceutical industry is of utmost importance. Recently amended MCI guidelines for the doctors are welcome steps in the right direction.
Are patients just the pawns?
In the absence of all these, the patients of all socio-economic strata will continue to be exploited as pawns by some unscrupulous healthcare players to satisfy their raw greed for making fast bucks at the cost of the intense agony of the ailing patients and their near and dear ones.
As stated earlier, this phenomenon is not new at all. Over a period of time, many stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry and the public at large have been raising the issue of physicians being influenced in their prescription decisions by various types of payments made to them by the pharmaceutical companies. Such types of significant and seemingly avoidable expenditures, presumed to be considered by the respective companies as a part of their ‘marketing costs’, are believed to be included in the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines, making them more expensive to the patients.
On the other hand, most physicians believe that free entertainment, gifts, their travel costs and seminar sponsorships in no way influence their prescription decision for the patients.
This is not a just India specific issue. Some skeptics believe that it has now become an all pervasive global scandal.
Self-regulation by the industry is most desirable:
To address this issue effectively, some national and international pharmaceutical associations have come out with their own codes of ethical marketing practices along with appropriate stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism, effectively.
Despite all these, it is an undeniable fact that overall perceptual image of the pharmaceutical industry in this respect to the stakeholders, in general, is not as good as it should have been.
The Government intervened in India:
Being alarmed by various media reports on the alleged pharmaceutical marketing (mal) practices in the country, the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) had advised the pharmaceutical industry to develop an ‘Uniform Code of Marketing Practices (UCMP)’, which will be applicable to the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.
It has been reported that the said UCMP with its stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism in a transparent procedural format, was submitted to the government by the major pharmaceutical industry associations in India. However, because of dissent of some section of the industry, the UCMP has not received the ‘green signal’ of the government, as yet. It was expected that all stakeholders will help maintaining the sanctity of the UCMP to address this sensitive global and local issue, effectively.
An emerging trend of public disclosure:
Around third quarter of 2008, in an industry first step, Eli Lilly announced its intent of full disclosure of payments that the company made to the physicians for various commercial reasons. Eli Lilly indicated disclosure of payments of more than US $500 to the physicians for advice and speaking at the seminars. Over a period of time, the company indicated that it will expand such disclosure to include other forms of payments to the physicians like gifts, various entertainment and travel.
Eli Lilly was soon followed in this direction by global pharmaceutical majors like, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
However, in India, such instances have not been reported, as yet.
Skepticism with voluntary disclosure:
Some are still skeptical about announcements of such ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by the global pharmaceutical majors to bring in better transparency in the functioning of the industry.

This section of people believes, there are hundreds and thousands of other pharmaceutical companies, who will not follow such precedence of voluntary disclosure in the absence of any properly enforced regulation.
Conclusion:
In all the countries and India is no exception, pharmaceutical companies, by and large, try to follow the legal ways and means to maximize turnover of their respective brands. Many follow transparent and admirable stringent self-regulations, stipulated either by themselves or by their industry associations.
‘Self-regulation with pharmaceutical marketing practices’ and ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by some leading global pharmaceutical companies are laudable steps to address this vexing issue. However, the moot question still remains, are all these good enough for the entire industry?
It is about time that all players in the healthcare space realize, in case these voluntary measures of the industry and the guidelines of the regulators like MCI, do not work effectively for any reason, there will be no other option but for the government to step in with iron hand and ‘fool proof’ regulations.
The popular dictum, especially, used in the healthcare industry, “all these are for the patients’ interest” should not be allowed to be misused or abused, any further, by some unscrupulous elements and greedy profiteers, to squeeze out even the last drop of financial resource from the long exploited population of ailing patients of India.

By: Tapan J Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Hype on “Superbug” – national pride – rational mind

Posted on by
Reply

Since around last fortnight Indian media of all types and forms, have been fiercely competing with each other to attract the ‘eye balls’ of the viewer/readers through ‘alarming’ news items starting from the situation in the J&K to the ‘rampant corruption’ involving the Commonwealth Games, with of course their usual (over)dose of sensationalism.

In a situation like this to prove ‘enough is JUST NOT enough’, as it were, on August 11, 2010, the well-known medical journal of repute “The Lancet” published a routine article, which further added to the ‘media sensationalism’ in India. The report highlighted that a new ALL antibiotics-resistant “Superbug” originating from Pakistan, appears to have taken its first life. This happened when a patient who was brought to a hospital in Belgium and died in June this year after having met with a car accident in Pakistan, where the diseased was infected by this ‘Superbug”.

This article in ‘The Lancet’ written by a team of international researchers including an Indian, elaborated that a new variety of enzyme named after India’s national capital New Delhi, called, “New Delhi Metallo beta lactamase” in short “NDM 1” turns any bacteria into a deadly “Superbug”, making it resistant to ALL types of antibiotics, leaving virtually no cure in sight.

It was also reported that this deadly “Superbug” has already reached the United Kingdom through patients who acquired it from the hospitals in India. The article reported that the deadly “Superbug” originated from the hospitals of Pakistan and India has the potential to precipitate serious health issues across the world.

“The New Delhi Superbug” was discovered even earlier:

This report generated a sharp reaction in India and from some of its authors regarding its authenticity. Some experts even termed this study as the ‘Western plot to undermine medical tourism in India’.

A leading daily of India reported, “Indian medical journal first documented Superbug”. It stated that that the first ever formal documentation of this ‘Superbug’ was made last year at the P.D. Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre located in Mumbai. This finding was published in the ‘Journal of the Association of Physicians in India (JAPI’) in March 2010. The reason for the emergence of the ‘Superbug’ was attributed to the ‘worrisome outcome of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics’.

“Unfair to blame the country for the ‘New Delhi’ superbug”:

Reacting to this article, Indian health authorities opined, “It is unfortunate that this new bug, which is an environmental thing, has been attached to a particular country.” The reasons being, “Several superbugs are surviving in nature and they have been reported from countries like Greece, Israel, the U.S., Britain, Brazil and there is no public health threat and no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it”. Some experts, however, feel, “such drug resistant bacteria is a matter of chance, is a global phenomenon and is preventable by sound infection prevention strategies which are followed in any good hospital.”

It has been reported that the ‘National Center for Disease Control of India’ is working on guidelines for appropriately recording these types of nosocomial (hospital acquired) infections.

“Superbug” Hype and Medical Tourism:
Many people of both India and Pakistan have felt since then that in absence of an effective response by the health authorities, especially, in India the fast evolving Medical Tourism initiatives, providing medical services ranging from complicated cardiovascular, orthopedic and cerebrovascular surgery to other life-threatening illnesses, may get adversely impacted.

The root cause and the ‘blame game’:

Experts have opined that overuse and imprudent or irrational use of antibiotics without any surveillance protocol are the root cause for emergence of such ‘Superbugs”, though some Indian parliamentarians have termed this article as the propaganda by some vested interests. It has been alleged that the study was funded by the Wellcome Trust and Wyeth, the two global pharmaceutical companies who produce antibiotics to treat such conditions, together with the European Union.

In this context it is worth mentioning that ‘The Lancet’ article in its disclosures says:

“Kartikeyan K Kumarasamy has received a travel grant from Wyeth… David M Livermore has received conference support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, and also holds shares in AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Dechra, and GlaxoSmithKline, and, as Enduring Attorney, manages further holdings in GlaxoSmithKline and Eco Animal Health. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.”

Such a situation has not been reported for the first time:

This type of situation has indeed some precedents. When ‘MRSA’ was reported for the first time, it caused similar scare. However, this time many experts feel that it is too early to conclude whether or not ‘NDM-1’ will eventually prove to be more dangerous than ‘MRSA’.

Several such “Superbugs”, as stated earlier, have already been reported from countries like Greece, Israel, USA, UK, and Brazil. However, as I know, in the battle against infectious diseases involving both the scientists and the bacteria, the later had always to succumb, in the long run.

‘NDM-1′, as well, perhaps will be no exception. All concerned MUST continue to make it happen, not by mere wishful thinking but by establishing a strong procedural mechanism to keep a careful vigil on the reasons for emergence of drug resistant bacterial strains in the country.

The World Health Organization (WHO) perspective:

On Saturday, August 21, 2010 the WHO commented, “while multi-drug resistant bacteria are not new and will continue to appear, this development requires monitoring and further study to understand the extent and modes of transmission, and to define the most effective measures for control”.
Conclusion:

The hype created and motives attributed by the media and the politicians over one such routine scientific papers published in a medical journal of international repute, in my view are unwarranted. There are built in systems within the scientific discourse for raising questions and even challenge any findings. Remarks made by one of the authors of the article to the media, perhaps added more fuel to the fire. Politicians seem to have joined the bandwagon to politicize even a benign medical issue captured in the said article. In an era where news items mean “sensationalism” and ‘politicization’ of most such news items is the order of the day, the civil society should be helped to understand the core issues behind all such raging debates.

Besides the reasons, as discussed earlier, attributed to repeated emergence of such “Superbugs”, one more issue I could foresee in today’s environment compared to the same in the past. This issue possibly lies in the shift in focus of pharmaceutical R&D from discovery of novel drugs for infectious diseases to discovery of drugs for non-infectious chronic illnesses like, metabolic disorders (diabetes), hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, psychiatric disorders, cancer, vaccines etc. This shift in the R&D focus has obviously been prompted by the tilt in the prevalence of the disease pattern towards the same direction.

Perhaps for this reason, one notices hardly any significant and novel molecules in the research pipelines of either global or local pharmaceutical companies to treat such antibiotic-resistant infections. It is understandebly not an ‘either/or’ situation. However, as we all know, in life-threatening conditions both types of drugs have their respective places to save precious lives. Let us ponder over it.

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.

Patients’ Safety, regulatory approval of Biosimilar Drugs in India and WHO Biosimilar guidelines

Posted on by
Reply

Biopharmaceutical drugs are broadly defined as:

”Those medicines produced using a living system or genetically modified organism. These drugs are different from traditional chemical medicines in many ways. Size of the molecule is one of the most obvious distinctions: the molecules of a biopharmaceutical medicine are much larger, have far more complex spatial structures and are much more diverse (“heterogeneous”) than the chemical molecules which make up classical drugs.”

The Biosimilar drugs:

Biosimilar drugs are follow-on versions of original biopharmaceutical medicines. Biosimilar medicines are intended to have the same mechanism of action for the same diseases as the original biopharmaceutical drugs.

The term “bio generic” will be misleading for off patent biopharmaceutical products, as no two biopharmaceutical products could possibly be exactly identical. This is mainly because of the following reason:

“Whereas generics of chemistry based medicines are identical in the molecular structure and therefore copies of the original product, based on a strict definition of “sameness”, a corresponding definition cannot be established for biosimilar medicines because of their nature and the complexity of their manufacturing process. Here post-translational modifications are dependent of the host cell and the process.”

Thus the common terminologies used to describe such products when the original products go off-patent are follow-on biologics and biosimilars.

Manufacturing Conditions of biosimilars ultimately define the final product:

Unlike chemical drugs, the manufacturing conditions and the process followed to produce biopharmaceutical drugs largely define the final product and its quality. Any alteration to the manufacturing process may result in a completely different product. Additionally proteins are relatively unstable. Thus additional measures in their storage, formulation and delivery are very critical.

Key concerns with the existing regulatory approval process for Biosimilar drugs:

• Small changes in the manufacturing process of biosimilar drugs could significantly affect the safety and efficacy of the molecule.

• Due to the very nature of a biologic it is virtually impossible for two different manufacturers to manufacture two identical biopharmaceutical drugs. Identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies need to be demonstrated in extensive comparability trials. Thus, as stated above, a ‘bio generic’ cannot exist.

• As against the situation applicable for generics of chemical molecules which can be replicated, biosimilar drugs cannot be replicated. At the most such biopharmaceuticals can be at the most “similar” but not “identical” to the original reference products. To ensure desired efficacy and safety of biosimilar products, these products should only be approved after charting out a formal and well validated regulatory pathway for the biosimilar drugs in India.

• Currently biosimilar drugs are given marketing approval by the regulator without such guidelines for large molecule biological and following just the bioequivalence model as specified in the Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India for small molecule chemical entities only, as the current Drugs and cosmetics Acts of India, very unfortunately, do not differentiate between large and small molecular drugs. This could, in turn, endanger patients’ safety with serious medical consequences.

Although, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) are responsible for approvals of the new drug applications, health being a state subject, respective state regulatory authorities are responsible for granting manufacturing license to the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers setting up facilities in the states, where regulatory oversight and incidences of weaker enforcement are common, will be able to market their products, including biosimilars, across the country. It is alleged that there are hardly any regulatory control over the mistakes or offences committed by the State Drug authorities who permit manufacture of drugs even unapproved by the DCGI. The existing issue of mushrooming of various irrational Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) products in India will vindicate this point.

The Government’s response to this public health concern:

Express Pharma in its June 30, 2009 edition reported Dr M K Bhan, Secretary, Government of India, DBT, saying, “The first question is do we have written guidelines available to people? Currently, we have a large committee of about 30 people in the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) which frequently discusses the current FDA and EMEA guidelines and makes sure that it is updated as per the guidelines in case by case approvals.”

He acknowledged, to make sure that the product is identical or original is harder for biological than for chemical entities and said, “So the next question is, what is the degree of difficulty you create to be sure that some of the products in the in vitro laboratories and the strength of the biomolecule, are to be characterized in details, and the other side is how expensive should the chemical evaluation be? At this moment, RCGM is seeing the issues and is in touch with both the FDA and the EMEA, and they are taking case by case decisions while trying to standardize the minimum information that is required to show how companies have characterized their products.”

“If we ask a big established company on this issue they will tell us to be strict, whereas a smaller company will suggest otherwise. What we are trying to do is being very scientific and come to a conclusion,” reported Express Pharma quoting Dr. Bhan.

The current practice:

Much water has flown down the bridge since the above interview was published. Nothing much has changed on ground regarding this critical issue, thus far. The industry sources allege that even today regulatory approval of biosimilar drugs (large molecules) are granted based on Phase III clinical trials, as specified in the schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts for the small molecules (chemicals) and that too conducted mostly on just 40 to 45 patients. At times the number of patients studied is even lesser. Immunogenicity study, which is so important for biosimilar drugs is, more often than not, overlooked. This could seriously compromise patients’ safety with such category of drugs.

Conclusion:

It is, indeed, quite surprising that in our country there is still no separate transparent and published guidelines for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs even when the World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with the same and India had actively participated in that exercise.
The question, therefore, comes to my mind whether the Biosimilar drugs manufactured in India would conform to international quality and safety standards, like in the U.K or what has been recently announced in the USA? If not, who will address the safety concerns of the patients administering these life saving medicines?

Such a concern gets vindicated by widely reported serious quality problems, detected by the drugs regulatory authorities, at some large and well known Biosimilar drug’s manufacturing units in India, in not too distant past and also from the condition of some vaccine manufacturing units in our country. The recent example of WHO cancelling the pre-qualification of ‘Shan 5’ (Shanta Biotech) vaccines for quality related problems, perhaps may help opening the eyes of our regulators, on the related patients’ safety issues arising out of regulatory laxity.

This issue assumes even greater importance considering the very recent development of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) unfolding an interesting scheme to encourage development of biosimialr dugs in India by offering financial support to the domestic pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industry.

The proposed new regulatory pathway for the marketing approval of Biosimilar drugs in India will immensely help paving the way for the Biopharmaceuticals drugs manufacturers in India to adequately prepare themselves to grab a significant share of the fast emerging Biosimilar drugs markets, particularly, in Europe and the USA, in the years to come.

The Ministry of Health and the Department of Biotechnology of the Government of India should, therefore, urgently and jointly consider amending the Drugs & Cosmetics Acts of India accordingly and establish robust regulatory guidelines for marketing approval of biosimilar drugs in the country, acknowledging the widespread concern for patients’ safety.

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 restore patients’ confidence MCI has amended its regulations… to strengthen it further will the government consider an Indian version of ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’?

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s India, blatant commercialization of the noble healthcare services has reached its nadir, as it were, sacrificing the ethics and etiquettes both in medical and pharmaceutical marketing practices at the altar of unlimited greed. As a result of fast degradation of ethical standards and most of the noble values supposed to be deeply rooted in the healthcare space, the patients in general are losing faith and trust both on the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, by and large. Health related multifaceted compulsions do not allow them, either to avoid such a situation or even raise a strong voice of protest.

Growing discontentment – a stark reality:

Growing discontentment of the patients in the critical area of both private and public healthcare in the country, is being regularly and very rightly highlighted by the media to encourage or rather pressurize all concerned to arrest this moral and ethical decay and reverse the evil trend, without further delay, with some tangible regulatory measures.

A laudable move by the MCI:

In such a situation, recent steps taken by the ‘Medical Council of India (MCI)’ deserves kudos from all corners. It is now up to the medical profession to properly abide by the new regulations on their professional conduct, etiquette and ethics. The pharmaceutical industry of India should also be a party towards conformance of such regulations, may be albeit indirectly.

No room for ambiguity:

Ambiguity, if any, in the MCI regulations, which has been recently announced in the official gazette, may be addressed through appropriate amendments, in case such action is considered necessary by the experts group and the Ministry of Health. Till then all concerned must ensure its strict compliance… for patients’ sake. The amended MCI regulations are only for the doctors and their professional bodies. Thus it is up to the practicing doctors to religiously follow these regulations without forgetting the ‘Hippocrates oath’ that they had taken while accepting their professional degree to serve the ailing patients. If these regulations are implemented properly, the medical profession, I reckon, could win back their past glory and the trust of the patients, as their will be much lesser possibility for the patients to get financially squeezed by some unscrupulous elements in this predominantly noble profession.

What is happening in the global pharmaceutical industry?

Just like in India, a public debate has started since quite some time in the US, as well, on allegedly huge sum of money being paid by the pharmaceutical companies to the physicians on various items including free drug samples, professional advice, speaking in seminars, reimbursement of their traveling and entertainment expenses etc. All these, many believe, are done to adversely influence their rational prescription decisions for the patients.

Raging ongoing debate on the financial relationship between industry and the medical profession:

As the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate, it appears that there is a good possibility of making disclosure of all such payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies’ mandatory by the Obama administration, as a part of the new US healthcare reform process.

Exemplary voluntary measures taken by large global pharmaceutical majors:

Eli Lilly, the first pharmaceutical company to announce such disclosure voluntarily around September 2008, has already uploaded its physician payment details on its website. US pharmaceutical major Merck has also followed suit and so are Pfizer and GSK. However, the effective date of their first disclosure details is not yet known. Meanwhile, Cleveland Clinic and the medical school of the University of Pennsylvania, US are also in the process of disclosing details of payments made by the Pharmaceutical companies to their research personnel and the physicians. Similarly in the U.K the Royal College of Physicians has been recently reported to have called for a ban on gifts to the physicians and support to medical training, by the pharmaceutical companies. Very recently the states like Minnesota, New York and New Jersey in the US disclosed their intent to bring in somewhat MCI like regulations for the practicing physicians of those states.

Conclusion:

Currently in the US, both in Senate and the House of Congress two draft bills on ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ are pending. It appears quite likely that Obama Administration, with the help of this new law, will make the disclosure of payments to physicians by the pharmaceutical companies mandatory. If President Obama’s administration takes such regulatory steps, will India prefer to remain much behind? The new MCI regulations together with such disclosure by the pharmaceutical companies, if and when it comes, could make the financial transactional relationship between the physicians and the pharmaceutical industry squeaky clean and totally transparent.

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.

Are common patients in India just as the pawns of the game of chess or the victims of circumstances or both, in the socio-economic milieu of the country?

Posted on by
Reply
“Public healthcare in India has the power to deliver improved health outcomes, as demonstrated by a growing number of national and international examples. However, supportive policies need to be put in place in order to change traditional determinants of health,”said Professor Sir Andrew Haines, Director, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at the third foundation day function of the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), not so long ago.The healthcare industry of India has indeed this power, which can catapult the industry to a growth orbit to generate an impressive revenue of around US$.150 billion by 2017 as estimated by India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) in November 2009. This growth will be driven primarily by the private investments in country.Be that as it may, the current healthcare standard and infrastructure in India, as we all know, is far from satisfactory. Though we have some healthcare centers of excellence spread sporadically across various cities and towns of India, public healthcare facilities are grossly inadequate to satisfy the current healthcare demand of the common man of India.

Healthcare spends in India:

Although total health spending of the nation is around 6 percent of its GDP being one of the highest within the developing countries of the world, public expenditure towards healthcare is mere 0.9 percent of the GDP and constitutes just a quarter of the total healthcare cost of the nation. According to a World Bank study, around 75 percent of the per capita spending are out of pocket expenditure of individual households, state and the union governments contribute around 15.2 percent and 5.2 percent respectively, health insurance and employers contribute just 3.3 percent and foreign donors and state municipalities contributing the balance of 1.3 percent.

Out of this meager allocated expenditure only 58.7% goes for the primary care.

Four essentials in Primary Healthcare:

When it comes to Primary Healthcare, following are the well accepted essentials that the government should effectively address:

1. Healthcare coverage to all, through adequate supply of affordable medicines and medical services

2. Patient centric primary healthcare infrastructure and networks

3. Participative management of healthcare delivery models including all stakeholders with a change from ‘supply driven’ to ‘demand driven’ healthcare program and policies

4. Health of the citizens should come in the forefront while formulating all policies for all sectors including industry, environment, education, deployment of labor, just to cite a few examples.

It is unfortunate that most of these essentials have not seen the light of the day, as yet.

The key reason for failure:

Inability on the part of the central government to effectively integrate healthcare with socio-economic, social hygiene, education, nutrition and sanitation related issues is one of the key factors for failure in this critical area.

Moreover in the healthcare planning process, health being a state subject, not much of coordinated planning has so far taken place between the central and the state governments to address the pressing healthcare related issues.

In addition, budgetary allocation and other fiscal measures, as stated earlier, towards healthcare both by the central and the state governments are grossly in adequate.

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) – a good beginning:

To address this critical issue, the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was conceived and announced by the government of India. NRHM aims at providing valuable healthcare services to rural households of the 18 States of the country namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarkhand and Uttar Pradesh, to start with.

The key objectives of this novel scheme are as follows:

• Decrease the infant and maternal mortality rate
• Provide access to public health services for every citizen
• Prevent and control communicable and non-communicable diseases
• Control population as well as ensure gender and demographic balance
• Encourage a healthy lifestyle and alternative systems of medicine through AYUSH

As announced by the government NRHM envisages achieving its objective by strengthening “Panchayati Raj Institutions” and promoting access to improved healthcare through the “Accredited Female Health Activist” (ASHA). It also plans on strengthening existing Primary Health Centers, Community Health Centers and District Health Missions, in addition to making maximum use of Non-Governmental Organizations.

NRHM is expected to improve access to healthcare by 20 to 25 percent in the next three years:

To many the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has made a significant difference to the rural health care system in India. It now appears that many more state governments are envisaging to come out with innovative ideas to attract and retain public healthcare professionals in rural areas.

On January 11, 2010, the Health Minister of India Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, while inaugurating the FDA headquarters of the Western Zone located in Mumbai, clearly articulated that the NRHM initiative will help improving access to affordable healthcare and modern medicines by around 20 to 25 percent during the next three years. This means that during this period access to modern medicines will increase from the current 35 percent to 60 percent of the population.

If this good intention of the minister gets translated into reality, India will make tremendous progress in the space of healthcare, confirming the remarks made by Professor Sir Andrew Haines, Director, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, as quoted above.

Is NRHM scheme good enough to address all the healthcare needs of the country?

NRHM is indeed a very good and noble initiative taken by the government to address the basic healthcare needs of the rural population, especially the marginalized section of the society. However, this is obviously not expected to work as a magic wand to resolve all the healthcare related issues of the country.

Are patients the pawns of the game of chess or the victims of circumstances or both of the socio-economic systems?

Currently, some important stakeholders of the healthcare industry seem to be using the patients or taking their names, mainly for petty commercials gains or strategic commercial advantages. They could be doctors, hospitals, diagnostic centers, pharmaceutical industry, activists, politicians or any other stakeholders. It is unfortunate that they all, sometime or the other, want to use the patients to achieve their respective commercial or political goals or to achieve competitive gains of various types or just for vested interests..

‘The Patient centric approach’ has now become the buzz word for all – do we ‘walk the talk’?

There does not seem to be much inclusiveness in the entire scheme of things in the private healthcare system, excepting some odd but fascinating examples like Dr. Devi Shetty, Sankara Nethralaya etc. As a result, excepting the creamy layers, patients from all other strata of society are finding it difficult to bear the treatment cost of expensive private healthcare facilities.

I personally know a working lady with a name Kajol (name changed) whose husband is suffering from blood cancer. One will feel very sad to watch how is she fast losing all her life’s savings for the treatment of her husband, pushing herself, having no alternative means, towards an extremely difficult situation day by day. There are millions of such Kajols in our society, who are denied of effective public healthcare alternatives to save lives of their loved ones.

If all stakeholders are so “patient centric” in attaining their respective objectives, why will over 650 million people of India not have access to modern medicines, even today? Is it ALL for poor healthcare infrastructure and healthcare delivery system in the country? If so, why do we have millions of Kajol’s in our country?

Consumer awareness and pressure on healthcare services and medicines in India will increase – a change for the better:

With the winds of economic change, rising general income levels especially of the middle income population, faster awareness and penetration of health insurance among the common citizens, over a period of time Indian consumers in general and the patients, in particular, like in the developed countries of the world, will start taking more and more informed decisions by themselves about their healthcare needs and related expenditure through their healthcare providers.

As the private healthcare providers will emerge in India, much more in number, like the developed world, they will concentrate not only on their financial and operational efficiencies exerting immense pressure on other stakeholders to squeeze out the best deal at the minimal cost, but also to remain competitive will start charting many uncharted frontiers and explore ways of enhancing the ‘feel good factors’ of the patients through various innovative ways… God willing.

Conclusion:

All stakeholders of the healthcare industry need to think of inclusive growth, not just the commercial growth, which could further widen the socio-economic divide in the country, creating numbers of serious social issues. As we know, this divide has already started widening at a brisk pace, especially in the healthcare sector of the country

It is hightime for the civil society, as well, to ponder and actively participate to make sure that the inclusive growth of the healthcare sector in India takes place, where like primary education, primary healthcare should be the ‘fundamental right’ for ALL citizens of the country.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.