Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Tapan Ray

On March 12, 2012, the Patent Office of India, in its landmark ruling, granted its first ever Compulsory License (CL) for Bayer’s patented kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar (Sorafenib), to the generic pharma player Natco, broadly citing the following reasons:

Reasonable requirements of public under Section 84 have not been satisfied.
The Patented Drug was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price as per Section 84 (1) (b).
Patented invention is not worked in the territory of India as per Section 84 (1) (c)

The 62 page order of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM) granted the CL to Natco for the rest of patent life of sorafenib in India at the high end of the UNDP 2001 royalty guidelines at 6 percent.

Sorafenib:

Sorafenib was co-developed and co-marketed by Bayer and Onyx Pharmaceuticals for the treatment of advanced renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. The drug got its first regulatory approval from the US FDA for advanced renal cell carcinoma in 2005.

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of UK had indicated that the drug extends life of the kidney cancer patients by three months on an average.

As stated earlier, in March 2008, Indian patent for Sorafenib was granted to Bayer by the CGPDTM. Thereafter, in December 2010 Natco had requested for a voluntary license from Bayer, which was rejected by the patentee.

It has been reported that sorafenib was registered as an ‘orphan drug’ in the US. The R&D cost of sorafenib was partly subsidized by the US Orphan Drug tax credit.

Mixed reaction:

Though the research based pharmaceutical industry across the world expressed its disappointment over the judgment, many experts and NGOs from different parts of the globe have opined that CGPDTM has set a right precedence by granting a CL for sorafenib, which will ensure, in the times to come, that patent monopolies are kept limited, especially when the patented products are not “reasonably affordable”.

Many people, therefore, envisage that the grant of the first ever CL by the Indian Patent Office could ultimately open the door for other generics players of India to apply for the same on similar grounds and mainly for ‘non-working of patents’, as many patented medicines are now imported into India by the respective global players.

Granting CL should be the last resort:

While none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to innovative and lifesaving medicines, as will be required for their medical treatment, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine issue of CL by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve this critical issue on a long term basis. Grant of CL, if any, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Working of a patent:

In this particular case, it has been decided by the CGPDTM that working of a patent will require the concerned company to manufacture the drug in India in a reasonable quantity. The argument of the CGPDTM in this respect, many experts believe, is quite a stretch of an interpretation of the statute.

This is mainly because, as one of the signatories of TRIPS, India has a national commitment for adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed, if importation is not considered as working of patent, the country could expose itself to the risk of violation of the Article 27.1 of TRIPS, both in letter and spirit.

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS:

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS on ‘local working of patents’ indicates as follows:

“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 products patented in India, is done locally either through imports or local manufacturing, should be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Form 27 vindicates the fact:

Form 27 of the Indian Patents Act, which is a statement regarding the working of patented inventions on commercial scale in India, in its point number 3, under ‘if worked’ states as follows:

“If worked: quantum and value (in Rupees) of the patented product:

Manufactured in India
Imported from other countries (give country-wise details)”

Thus, when Form 27 itself accepts importation as ‘local working of patent’, it is indeed intriguing why was the decision to the contrary taken by the CGPDTM?

Moreover, it is worth noting that the term ‘manufacture in India’ was deleted from the earlier Section 90 (a) of the Patents Act.

A statutory requirement:

CGPDTM 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.

It will be interesting to know, whether CGPDTM in response to Form 27 submissions of Bayer had informed them earlier that the Nexavar Patent has not been worked in India. If not, what is then the sanctity of Form 27 filing?

Delhi High Court Judgment:

Further, it has been well reported that in the legal case of ‘Telemecanique & Controls (I) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industries SA 94(2001)DLT865’ on working of patents, the Delhi High Court had concluded that importation would amount to working of Patents.

India specific pricing for innovative drugs is not uncommon:

At this stage, it is worth mentioning that India specific pricing for innovative drugs are not uncommon in the country at all. Following are some good examples:

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals has already announced its differential pricing system for India and will sell its innovative drugs at prices 25% to 40% less than what those are in the US.
MSD has already introduced its India specific price for patented products. Their patented cervical cancer drug Gardasil is being sold in India at 75% -80% less than the global prices.
Moreover, MSD’s patented anti-diabetic drug Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) is locally sourced and marketed at one-tenth of the global price.
In 2008 Novartis reportedly tied up with the domestic pharma major USV to market its patented anti-diabetic drug Galvus (Vildagliptin) by pricing it lower than Januvia. According to reports, Novartis markets Galvus in the metros, while USV markets the same brand in tier two and three cities of India.
Roche has recently collaborated with the domestic pharma player Emcure Pharmaceuticals to manufacture its two well-known biologics Herceptin and MabThera not only to cater to the domestic needs, but also for export to other developing markets.

Manufacturing of a small quantity locally – an issue:

As quoted in the order of the CGPDTM there are around 8842 eligible patients for sorafenib in India. All these patients put together will require Nexavar ranging from 27000 (Bayer’s figure) to 70000 boxes (NATCO’s figure) per year. Thus, the moot question remains: even for such small annual requirements, should global companies set up manufacturing facilities in all the countries like, India.

Another question: if other smaller markets of the world also make local manufacturing mandatory for any pharmaceutical products that will be sold in their respective countries, will the Indian players find those markets attractive enough to expand their business? In that case who will be the net losers?… Patients?

Conclusion:

If the issue of whether importation will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not is not answered conclusively under higher judicial scrutiny in conformity of Article 27.1 of TRIPS and CL is granted to local manufacturers for commercial benefits under similar situation, availability of life saving innovative products in the Indian market for the patients of India could be in a real jeopardy.

The objective of improving access to innovative medicines is a very desirable one for any country like ours. However, if India routinely starts granting CL for this purpose before exhausting all other avenues to achieve this goal, it would risk sending a very wrong signal to the outside world that the country is shirking its responsibilities to create an appropriate ecosystem to foster and support pharmaceutical innovation to offer better quality of lives to the citizens of the country in particular.

In the absence of both collaboration and foreign direct investments by the global innovators in the field of pharmaceutical research and development, India may feel handicapped, especially when our neighbor China is surging ahead in this field with longer strides.

Thus, routine grant of CL, as is being envisaged by many in India, on a similar situation could, on the contrary, make the issue of access to innovative medicines by the common man even more challenging, in the longer run.

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.

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain

Posted on March 5, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In not too distant past, the stocks of the global pharmaceutical companies, by and large, used to be categorized as ‘blue-chips’ for their high return to investors, as compared to many other sectors.

Unfortunately, the situation has changed significantly since then. Most of those large players now appear to be under tremendous pressure for excellence in performance.

The issues of ‘Patent Cliff’, coupled with patent expiries, price and margin pressures from payors’ group in the developed world, have already started haunting the research based pharmaceutical companies and are assuming larger proportions day by day.

The situation continues to be grim:

Collective impact of all the above factors has prompted the major pharma players to resort to huge cost cutting exercises leading to employee layoffs, quite often, in a massive scale.

According to a study done by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., which was also quoted in the Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011, 297,650 employees were laid off by the global pharma industry between the years 2000 and 2011.

Year	Number of Job cuts
2000	2,453
2001	4,736
2002	11,488
2003	28,519
2004	15,640
2005	26,300
2006	15,638
2007	31,732
2008	43,014
2009	61,109
2010	53,636
Total	297,650

Source: Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. ©/Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011

Top of the list layoffs:

Forbes, Pharma and Healthcare, June 10, 2011 reported ‘top of the list layoffs’ in the Global Pharmaceutical Industry from 2004 to 2011. This number reported to be comparable to as many people working at the three largest drug companies combined namely, Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline GSK in 2011.

Company	No of layoffs
Pfizer	58,071
Merck	44,400
Johnson & Johnson	9,900
Eli Lilly	5,500
Bristol-Myers Squibb	4,600

More recently ‘Mail online’ dated February 3, 2012 reported that ‘Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announces 7,300 job losses as it pares back staff to save money’. Immediately, thereafter, on February 24, 2012 Reuters reported that ‘German drugs and chemicals group Merck KGaA has announced plans for a cost-cutting program across all its businesses that may include job cuts’.

The old paradigm is no longer relevant:

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’ of U.K had conducted a study with a sizable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional expertise like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas. The report highlighted that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic option.

Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Collaborative Research to overcome R&D productivity crisis: The cost of each new drug approval has now reached a humongous proportion and is still increasing. This spiraling R&D cost does not seem to be sustainable any longer. Thus there emerges a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors. Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the ‘risk and reward’ of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction. Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy and perhaps may also not be acceptable to many large global players as on date, but they are not absolutely uncommon either. The world has already witnessed such collaborative research, especially in the sectors, like Information Technology (IT). Thus, it remains quite possible, as the industry moves on, that the world will have opportunities to take note of initiation of various cost effective collaborative R&D projects to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the global healthcare space. Greater access to fast growing markets: The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government on the ground of ‘affordability of medicines’ in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing/margin pressure for the pharmaceutical players.

These critical emerging developments can be effectively negotiated with significant increase in market access, especially in the emerging economies of the world, with each country specific business strategies. ‘One size fits all’ type of standardized approach, currently adopted by some large global players in the markets like India, may not be able to fetch significant dividend in the years ahead.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the payors, doctors and patients will increasingly look for, much beyond the physical products/brands, would prove to be the cutting edge for the winners for greater market access in the emerging economies.

Current business processes need significant re-engineering: Top management teams of many global pharma companies have already started evaluating the relevance of sole dependance on the current R&D based pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus.

Only treatment of diseases may no longer be considered enough with an offering of just various types of medications. Added value with effective non-therapeutic/incremental disease management/prevention initiatives and appropriately improving quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process in the emerging markets. Continuous innovation required not just in R&D, but across the value chain: Continuous innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain, beyond pharmaceutical R&D, is the most critical success factor. The ability to harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be a critical part of the business strategy of the pharmaceutical companies in the new paradigm. Avoidance of silos, integrating decision making processes: More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Creation of silos, duplication of processes and empire building have long been a significant trend, especially, in the larger pharmaceutical companies. Part of a better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient deployment of investments and other resources for organizational value creation and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications, organizational flab producing and will no longer deliver differential value to the stakeholders. Finding newer ways of customer engagement: Growing complexity of the business environment is making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communication channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors, patients and other stakeholders and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required. Questioning perceived ‘fundamentals’ of the old paradigm:

Despite a paradigm shift in the business environment, fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry appears to have been attempting to address these critical issues over a decade, has not changed much.

In their attempt to unleash the future growth potential, the pharmaceutical players are still moving around the same old dictums like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, satisfying customer needs, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building blockbuster brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few. Unfortunately, despite all such resource intensive initiatives, over a period of time, nothing seems to have changed fundamentally, excepting, probably, some sort of arrest in the rate of declining process.

Conclusion:

Such incremental focus over a long period of time on the same areas, far from being able to ride the tide of change effectively, does ring an alarm bell to some experts. More so, when all these initiatives continue to remain their prime catalysts for change even today to meet new challenges of a different paradigm altogether.

The moot question therefore remains: what are the companies achieving from all heavy investments being continuously made in these areas since long…and why have they not been able to address the needs of the new ball game for business excellence, effectively, thus far?

When results are not forthcoming despite having taken all such measures, many of them have no options but to resort to heavy cost cutting measures including job losses to protect the profit margin, as much as one possibly can.

If the issues related to declining rate of global pharmaceutical business performance is not addressed sooner moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’, one can well imagine what would its implication be, in the endeavor towards arresting continuous job losses through business excellence, in the years ahead.

By: Tapan J Ray

Pharmaceutical innovation and Public Health Interest: Ways to achieving the dual objectives

Posted on February 6, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical sector in particular have been experiencing a plethora of innovations not only to cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the quality of life, but also to help increasing overall disease-free life expectancy of the population with various types of treatment and disease management options. Unfortunately despite all these, over half the global population is still denied of basic healthcare needs and support.

A 2011 official estimate of the current world population reads as 6.93 billion. Out of which over three billion live with a subsistence of less than US$ 2 per day. Another billion population is surviving on even less than US$ 1 per day. According to published reports around 18 million people die from poverty-related causes across the world, every year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that over a billion population of the world still suffer from neglected tropical diseases.

On February 3, 2012, quoting a ‘World Bank and PwC report’, ‘The Economic Times’ reported that “70% of Indians spend all their income on healthcare and buying drugs.”

In a situation like this, challenges that the governments and the civil society are facing in many developing and to some extent even in some developed countries (although for different reasons), are multi-factoral. It has been well established that the humongous global healthcare challenges are mostly of economic origin.

In such a scenario, ongoing heated debate on innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and public health interest keeps gaining momentum all over the globe and has still remained unabated.

Argumentative Indians have also got caught in this raging debate. I reckon rightly so, as India is not only the largest democracy of the world contributing 16.7% of the global population, it is also afflicted with 21% of the global burden of disease. Thus, the reason for similar heated debate in our country is indeed no brainer to any one.

Thorny issues:

One of the thorny issues in this debate is the belief that huge R&D budgets of the global pharmaceutical companies are worked out without any consideration of relative value of such investments to the vast majority of population in our society, across the world. These thought leaders argue, as the poor cannot pay for the expensive innovative drugs, they are mostly denied of the fruits of pharmaceutical innovation in their battle against diseases.

These experts also say that safeguards built into the patent system in form of compulsory licenses are not usually broad enough to improve access to innovative medicines to a larger section of the society, whenever required.

In addition, they point out that wide scope of patent grants in areas of early fundamental research, quite often is strategically leveraged by the patentee to block further R&D in related areas without significant commercial considerations to them. Such a situation comes in the way of affordable innovative drug development for public health interest, when need arises.

Inadequate access to medicines in India:

The key issue in the country is even more complicated. Inadequate or lack of access to modern medicines reportedly impacts around 50% of our population. It is intriguing to fathom, why has the nation not been able to effectively address the challenge of access to relatively affordable high quality generic medicines to the deprived population of the society over a period of so many decades?

Thus IPR in no way be considered as the reason for poor access, at least, to generic medicines, especially in India. Neither, it is the reason for inadequate availability of affordable essential medicines for the diseases of the poor.

The key reason, as is widely believed, is inadequate focus on the deprived population to address their public health concerns by the government.

Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease:

A study titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

The most plausible explanation for the lack of a relationship between the burden of disease in the developing countries and pharmaceutical innovation, as pointed out by the study, is weak incentives for firms to develop medicines for the diseases of the poor.

A healthy debate:

Many experts argue that greater focus on the development of new drugs for the diseases of the poor, should not be considered as the best way to address and eradicate such diseases in the developing countries. On the contrary, strengthening basic healthcare infrastructure along with education and the means of transportation from one place to the other could improve general health of the population of the developing world quite dramatically.

However, another school of experts think very differently. In their opinion, health infrastructure projects are certainly very essential elements of achieving longer-term health objectives of these countries, but in the near term, millions of unnecessary deaths in the developing countries can be effectively prevented by offering more innovative drugs at affordable prices to this section of the society.

Creation of IGWG by WHO:

Responding to the need of encouraging pharmaceutical innovation without losing focus on public health interest, in 2006 the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)‘ created the ‘Inter-governmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)‘. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries.

‘Reward Fund’ for innovation and access – an idea:

A paper titled, “Optional reward for new drug for developing countries” published by the Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Institute of Health Economics, proposed an optional reward fund for pharmaceutical innovation aimed at the developing world to the pharmaceutical companies, which would develop new drugs while ensuring their adequate access to the poor. The paper suggests that innovations with very high market value will use the existing patent system, as usual. However, the medicines with high therapeutic value but low market potential would be encouraged to opt for the optional reward system.

It was proposed that the optional reward fund should be created by the governments of the developed countries and charitable institutions to ensure a novel way for access to innovative medicines by the poor.

The positive effects of the debate:

One positive effect of this global debate is that some global pharmaceutical companies like Novartis, GSK and AstraZeneca have initiated their R&D activities for the neglected tropical diseases of the world like, Malaria and Tuberculosis.

Many charitable organizations like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation are allocating huge amount of funds for this purpose.

On January 30, 2012, on behalf of the research-based pharmaceutical industry, Geneva based International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) by a Press Release announced donations of 14 billion treatments in this decade to support elimination or control of nine key Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs).

Without creating much adverse impact on pharmaceutical innovation ecosystem of the country, the Government of India is also gradually increasing its resource allocation to address the issue of public health, which is still less than adequate as of now.

All these newer developments and initiatives are definitely ushering in an era of positive change for a grand co-existence of pharmaceutical innovation and public health interest of the country, slow and gradual though, but surely a change for the better.

Innovation helps to improve public health:

In India, various stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry feel that there is a need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR help rather than hinder public health. Some initiatives have already been taken in this direction with the pioneering ‘patent pool’ initiative of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in Europe and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of the Government of India.

The pace needs to be accelerated:

The pace of achieving the dual objectives of fostering pharmaceutical innovation without losing focus on public health has to be accelerated, though progress is being slowly made in these areas through various initiatives. Additional efforts are warranted for sustainability of these initiatives, which have not yet gained the status of robust and sustainable work models.

However in India, the government in power should shoulder the key responsibility garnering all resources to develop and implement ‘Universal Health Coverage’ through appropriate innovative healthcare reform measures. Such steps will help achieving the country its national goal of providing affordable healthcare to all.

At the same time, creation of a variant of ‘reward fund’ to encourage smaller pharmaceutical players of India to pursue pharmaceutical innovation needs to be considered expeditiously. This will help encouraging pharmaceutical innovation in a big way within the country.

Address the basic issue of poverty:

It is a well-accepted fact that the price is one of the key determinants to improve access to modern medicines to a vast majority of the population. However, the moot question remains how does one make medicines more affordable by not addressing effectively the basic issue of general poverty in the country? Without appropriately resolving this issue, affordability of medicines will continue remain a vexing problem and a critical issue to address public health in India.

Conclusion:

Innovation, as is widely acknowledged, is the wheel of progress of any nation. This wheel should move on… on and on with the fuel of IPR, which is an economic necessity of the innovator to make the innovation sustainable.

In the book titled, ‘Pharmaceutical Innovation: Revolutionizing Human Health‘ the authors have illustrated how science has provided an astonishing array of medicines to effectively cope with human ailments over the last 150 years.

Moreover, pharmaceutical innovation is a very expensive process and grant of patents to the innovators is an incentive of the government to them for making necessary investments towards R&D projects to meet unmet needs of the patients. The system of patent grants also contributes to society significantly by making freely available patented information to other scientists to improve upon the existing innovation through non-infringing means.

Altruism, especially in the arena of public health, may be demanded by many for various considerations. Unfortunately, that is not how the economic model of pharmaceutical innovation and IPR works globally. Accepting this global reality, the civil society should deliberate on how innovation and IPR can best be used, in a sustainable manner for public health interest, especially for the marginalized section of the society.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Posted on January 23, 2012 by Tapan Ray

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

Indian Pharmaceutical Landscape: Looking back (2011), Looking Ahead (2012)

Posted on January 2, 2012 by Tapan Ray

2011 witnessed many interesting developments within the pharmaceutical industry of India. All these developments may not be appreciated by all stakeholders alike, nonetheless had an impact on the industry of varying degree both in the qualitative and quantitative terms.

That said, the list of ‘unfinished agenda’ of the government to improve healthcare access and simultaneously to fuel the growth engine of the industry with reform oriented policy initiatives, kept on increasing staggeringly.

The issue of improving access to modern medicines with comprehensive measures continued to remain unaddressed even in the draft National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Policy 2011. Similarly, the Prime Minister’s dedication of the decade of 2010 as the decade of innovation remained a pipe dream for the pharmaceutical industry of the country. Policy paralysis of the decision makers during the year failed to translate even this praiseworthy intent into reality.

Increasing consumption of medicines in India:

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) continued to grow at a scorching pace of around 15% registering a turnover of Rs 59,621 Crore during the year. (Source: Nov 2011- AIOCD/AWACS).

Fast increasing consumption of medicines in the country continued to position IPM not just as another global success story, but also an emerging pharmaceutical force to reckon with, especially in the development and manufacturing of high quality and low cost generic pharmaceuticals together with its world-class Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS). Indian pharmaceutical players now cater to about 20% of global requirements of high quality and affordable generic medicines of all types.

Consolidation process continues:

At the same time, ongoing consolidation process within the pharmaceutical industry continued in 2011 with Aventis Pharma (Sanofi) acquiring Universal Medicare and Zydus Cadila shopping for Biochem Pharma.

November 30, 2011: Signaled beginning of the end of the blockbuster drug era:

On November 30, 2011, the patent expiry of the world largest ever brand Lipitor (Pfizer), clocking an annual turnover of over US$ 14 billion and accounting for more than 20% of the company’s sales turnover until recently, I reckon, heralds beginning of the end of the blockbuster drug era. To equal the turnover of Lipitor with another brand will be a huge challenge not only for Pfizer, but also for any other company in the near to medium term.

Patent expiry of Lipitor will now help opening up the super size Atorvastatin market of the developed world to the Indian generic players.

Launch of innovative products:

Launch of several innovative and patented products in India by the global players during 2011, reconfirmed the attractiveness of the IPM to the global innovator companies. Some of these innovative products are Revolade (Eltrombopag) , Votrient (Pazopanib Hydrochloride) of GlaxoSmithKline, Flexbumin solution of Baxter and BD Ultra-Fine III Nano of Becton Dickinson.

Looking back (2011):

During 2011, the industry witnessed a number of initiatives from the government as an ongoing process, some of which are as follows:

Establishment of dedicated Pharma Zones in Mumbai, Hyderabad and Delhi airports, including cold rooms to help achieving world-class cold-chain logistics in India in the medium term.
For the first time in 2011, the government initiated steps to put the ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ in place to ensure high safety standards for follow-on biologics in India. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) prepared these guidelines in consultation with the industry, the effective implementation of which is keenly awaited. This important step will also help Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers to prepare themselves well to explore the opportunity of gradually opening-up biosimilar drugs markets in the western world, like the USA and EU.
The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) came out with a draft Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) in 2011 to curb alleged unethical practices of ‘bribing doctors’ by pharma companies. The code initially is expected to be of voluntary in nature and its effective implementation will be ensured by the pharmaceutical companies and the industry associations over a period of six months. Thereafter, if the implementation level of UCPMP does not measure up to the expectations of the DoP, it will be made mandatory under strict regulatory control. However, the final UCPMP has not been announced by the government, as yet.
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare constituted a twelve member task force to evolve a long term strategy to address various issues faced by the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. Unfortunately, tangible outcome from this committee is still awaited.
Following the Supreme Court directive to the government to bring essential drugs under price control, after a very long time, the Government came out hurriedly with a draft National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Policy 2011 (Draft NPPP 2011) by increasing the span of effective price control to over 65% of the IPM. This flawed draft policy, if implemented, could stifle the growth of the industry.
During the year the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare finalized the National Vaccine Policy to strengthen the institutional framework required for the universal immunization program. The policy is also expected to streamline the decision-making process on new and underutilized vaccine introduction, besides addressing issues of vaccine security, management, regulatory guidelines and vaccine research and development.
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare also came out with the National Health Research Policy in 2011 to overcome the weaknesses of the publicly funded health structures, which restrict research in the priority health areas. This policy is expected to help maximizing the returns on investments in health research through creation of a robust health research system.
New National Manufacturing Policy (NMP), which ultimately saw the light of the day during the year, is expected to promote the productivity of the pharmaceutical sector, as well. The policy will help enhancing the share of total manufacturing of all industrial sectors put together from the current level of 15% to 25% of the GDP within a decade and would also help creating 100 million jobs in the country.
100% FDI in the Pharmaceuticals sector of India remained unchanged, which will attract more foreign investments in this sunrise sector of India.
‘Universal Health Converge’, announced during the year by the Planning Commission of India, will help reducing significantly the ‘out of pocket’ expenses incurred towards healthcare, improving its access to all.

Looking Ahead (2012):

The good news for 2012 is that the Planning Commission has decided to increase the national spending on health to 2.5% of the GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan starting from 2012.
In 2012, if the ‘NPPP 2011’ is implemented as in its current draft form, it could seriously impede the court of the vibrant pharmaceutical industry of India.
Introductions of DTC and GST: The ‘Discussion Paper’ on the draft ‘Direct Taxes Code Bill, 2009’ highlighted the possibility that the GST regime could have multiple rates based on classification of goods that are to be listed under the exempted category, like goods which would attract lower rate and another category of goods qualifying for standard rate. This concept of multiple rate of tax under GST regime could impact the pharma/health science industry as the business models followed by this industry typically involves import/manufacture and sale of life saving drugs, medical devices and other formulations, which presently attract either NIL rate of duty under central excise/VAT or lower rate of excise duty at 4%. Presently clinical trial services/R&D services attract service tax at 10.30%.
The growth trajectory of the IPM is expected to continue to go north despite slowdown in the US and European economies in 2012.

Conclusion:

Like many other sectors, the pharmaceutical industry of India also witnessed the reform oriented policy paralysis of the government in 2011, barring some superficial, half- hearted and incomplete initiatives, as indicated above.

Key areas of general public health interest, encouraging innovation, fostering R&D and improving access to medicines to alleviate healthcare related problems of the common man and at the same time to propel the industry to the inclusive high growth trajectory, have still remained unanswered.

Faster recovery from reform-oriented policy paralysis of the government and effective translation into reality of the seemingly good intent of the policy makers, is now eagerly awaited in 2012.

By: Tapan J Ray

Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk

Posted on December 26, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Wish you and your family all happiness, prosperity, peace and good health in the brand new year 2012

Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk

Ethical business conduct and value standards, especially of medium, large to very large corporations are coming under increasing stakeholders’ scrutiny and being severely criticized for non-compliance in many instances. At the same time, more and more corporate initiatives are being taken towards this direction by both the global and local companies with special emphasis to combat bribery/ corrupt business practices and contribute to social justice and environmental protection.

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts and value standards’ of a company usually encompasses the following, among many others:

The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders
Caring for the society and environment
Fiduciary responsibilities
Business and marketing practices
R&D activities, including clinical trials
Corporate Governance
Corporate espionage

That said, codes of ethical conduct, corporate values and their compliance should not only get limited to the top management, but must get percolated downwards, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to codes of business ethics and corporate values are important to know, but the qualitative change in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any business corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

Business Ethics and Values in the globalized economy:

Globalization of business makes the process of formulating the codes of ethics and values indeed very challenging for many organizations. This is mainly because of the fact that the cultural differences at times create a conflict on ethics and values involving different countries.

For this purpose, many business organizations prefer to interact with the cultural and religious leaders in the foreign countries, mainly to ascertain what really drives culturally diverse people to act in certain ways.

With the wealth of knowledge of the local customs and people, the cultural and religious leaders can help an organization to unify the code of ethics and values of the globalized business.Such leaders can also help identifying the ‘common meeting ground of minds’ from a specific country perspective, after carefully assessing the cultural differences, which are difficult to resolve in the near term.

The ‘common meeting ground of minds’, thus worked out, could form the bedrock to initiate further steps to strengthen global business standards of ethics and values of an organization.

OECD with USA started early enacting ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’:

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen. FCPA currently has significant impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

But a dichotomy exists in the US for ‘Grease Payment’:

‘Grease payment’ is classified by OECD as “a facilitating one if it is paid to government employees to speed up an administrative process where the outcome is already pre-determined.”

In the FCPA of the US ‘grease payment’, has been defined as “a payment to a foreign official, political party or party official for ‘routine governmental action,’ such as processing papers, issuing permits, and other actions of an official, in order to expedite performance of duties of non-discretionary nature, i.e., which they are already bound to perform. The payment is not intended to influence the outcome of the official’s action, only its timing.”

Considering all these ‘grease payments’ seem to be an absolute dichotomy to the overall US policy for ethical standards and against corruption.

Currently besides US, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are the countries that permit ‘Grease payments’.

Notwithstanding the fact that the governments of the US and four other countries allow companies to keep doing business without undue delay by making ‘grease payments’ to the lower government officials, such payments are considered as illegal in most other countries, if not all, in which they are paid, including India.

In India such a business practice is viewed as bribery, which is not only perceived as unethical and immoral, but also a criminal offense under the law of the land. Even otherwise, ‘grease payments’ are viewed by a vast majority of the population as a morally questionable standard of ‘business conduct’.

Many companies are setting-up the ethical business standards globally:

While visiting the website of especially the large global and local companies, one finds that all these companies barring a very few exceptions have already put in place a comprehensive ‘code of business ethics and values’. Some of these companies have also put in place dedicated code compliance officers across the globe.

However, it is important to ensure that the persons who are appointed either as the ‘Watch Dogs’ for such commendable initiatives or to head any committee on the subject, are individuals with squeaky clean record of adherence to the ‘Code of Ethics and Values’. Otherwise, the entire exercise may be perceived as making a mockery of the whole purpose.

Despite all these commendable initiatives towards establishing a corporate codes of business ethics and values, the moot question that haunts many time and again: “Are all these companies ‘walking the talk’?”

Otherwise, why does one read news items like ‘Dirty Secrets In Soap Prices’ as appeared in the ‘Wall Street Journal’ dated December 9, 2011 reporting that P&G, Colgate and Henkel have been fined $484 million by the French Government for ‘Price Fixing’ of laundry soap.

Or why do we see reports like one in the “Fierce Pharma’ dated October 5, 2010 stating that in the US eleven pharmaceutical companies have paid a total of over $6 billion to the government in 22 months for unethical marketing practices Or a ‘Bloomberg’ report dated January 17, 2011 with the headline, “Glaxo Sees $3.5 Billion Charge Related to Avandia Claims, Sales Practices.”

Or…

It is perhaps a sheer coincidence that whenever, such incidents take place, the fingers are usually pointed towards the middle or lower management cadre of the corporations concerned for non-compliance. The Corporate or top management ownership of such seemingly avoidable incidents still remains a distant reality.

Public perception of ethical standards of Pharmaceutical companies is not encouraging:

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, the marketing practices have still remained a very contentious issue despite many attempts of self-regulation by the industry. The flow of complaints for alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down significantly, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation.

Nearer home, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has already circulated a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for stakeholders to comment on it. The final UCPMP, when it comes into force, if not implemented by the pharmaceutical players in its ‘letter and spirit’, may attract government’s ire in form of strong doses of regulatory measures.

A study on the UCPMP:

Ernst & Young released the key findings of a survey report on the UCPMP in September, 2011 titled ‘Pharmaceutical marketing: ethical and responsible conduct’, which are as follows:

Around two-third of the respondents felt that the implementation of the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) drafted by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, would change the manner in which the pharma products are currently marketed in India
More than 50% of the respondents are of the opinion that UCPMP guidelines may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity
More than 50% of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code will be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee
Majority of the respondents (90%) felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system for ensuring compliance with the UCPMP
Around 72% of the respondents felt that the MCI was not stringently enforcing its medical ethics guidelines
Only 36% of the respondents felt that the MCI’s guidelines would have an impact on the overall sales of the pharma companies

Thus the quality of implementation of self-regulatory ‘Code of Marketing Practices’ is not only attracting heavy criticism from the stakeholders in many countries in the world, including India, but also indicating a trust deficit between the industry and the civil society in general.

Clinical Trials in India: Ethics and values

Clinical Trial is another area of pharmaceutical business, especially in the Indian context, where more often than not, issues related to ethics and values are being raised. In an article titled, ‘Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns’ published by the World Health Organization (WHO) following observations have been made:

“The latest developments in India reflect a concerted effort on the part of the global public health community to push clinical trials issues to the fore in the wake of several high-profile cases in which pharmaceutical companies were shown to be withholding information from regulators.”

Similarly ‘Times of India’ in its June 6, 2011 issue reported, “Clinical trials claimed 25 lives in 2010, only 5 paid compensation.”

Conclusion:

The need to formulate ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ and even more importantly their compliance are gaining increasing importance and relevance in the globalized business environment. Unfortunately, at the same time, many companies across the world are being increasingly forced to come to terms with the heavy costs and consequences of ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments, perhaps arising out of intense pressure for the business performance.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world. However, even if it these are implemented in a country-specific way, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and owning the responsibility.

The million dollar question thus emerges ‘How to make it happen?’

Draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011: A flawed recipe

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The ‘Drug Price’ has always remained one of the critical factors to ensure greater access to medicines, especially in the developing economies like India, where predominantly individuals are the payers. This point has also been widely accepted by the international community, except perhaps the diehard ‘self-serving’ vested interests.

Just to cite some key examples, in the “ACCESS TO MEDICINES” report, the ‘Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)’ of ‘Swiss Centre for International Health’ has highlighted, “Affordability is one core issue at the center of debates about medicine use in international health.”

An article appeared on “This is Africa”, a new publication from the ‘Financial Times’ dated November 11, 2011 wrote: “The BRIC countries have redefined affordable drugs, making access to medicines possible for millions in low income regions. Yet changing priorities for major generic drug producers, such as India, could reshape the African pharmaceutical landscape. Access to medicines has improved dramatically over the last decade, driven by the rise of cheap pharmaceuticals from Asia, domestic efforts by governments of developing countries, commitment from donors, and price cuts from brand producers.”

Even the Director General Pascal Lamy of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in his address to the 11th Annual International Generic Pharmaceutical Alliance Conference in Geneva on 9 December 2008, said that since the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, “access to medicines has been improved through a major reduction of prices, enhanced international funding, a greater recognition of the need to find a balance within the intellectual property system, as well as the use of some of the TRIPS flexibilities by certain WTO Members”.

Similarly, the global pharmaceutical major GlaxoSmithKline (GsK) in its 2010 ‘Corporate Responsibility Report’ indicated: “Pricing is one factor that impacts on access to medicines and vaccines.”

Echoing similar sentiment the Swiss Pharma giant Novartis in its website articulated: “The issue of access to medicines is complex, involving factors such as development and health policies, health system infrastructure and best practices, pricing, rational use of drugs and adequate funding.”

‘Drug Price’ control alone cannot improve access to medicines:

As we have seen above, drug price is indeed one of the critical factors to improve access to modern medicines. It is for this reason, Governments in countries like Germany, Spain, UK, Korea and China have recently mulled strict price control measures in their respective countries.

Thus, I reiterate, drug price is certainly an important factor to improve access to modern medicines, but definitely not the only factor to focus on, as is being done in India by its successive governments.

In India, we have witnessed through almost the past four decades that drug price control alone would do little to improve access to modern medicines to the common man significantly, especially in the current socio-economic and healthcare environment of the country. Continuation of poor access to modern medicines even after 40 years of stringent drug price control vindicates this point.

Draft NPPP 2011:

A reform-oriented ‘Drug Policy’ of India, was languishing as a ‘prisoner of indecision’ of the policy makers, since quite a while.

Draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011) has just been announced by the government with the ‘essentiality’ criteria for price control. The stakeholders have been requested to give their views on the same.

The draft policy seems to have taken some bold initiatives in terms of criteria and mechanics of price control, especially, moving away from the age old and non-transparent ‘Cost Based Pricing (CBP)’ to a more transparent ‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ model of Pronab Sen Committee of 2005.

However, in my view, NPPP 2011 has failed yet again to go beyond price control by effectively addressing other key issues for inadequate access to modern medicines by the common man, in a comprehensive and holistic way.

HSPH article of 2007 echoes the basis of Draft NPPP 2011:

‘Harvard School of Public Health’ in an article of July 2007 titled, ‘How Effective Is India’s Drug Price control Regime?’ had commented that in the present form, DPCO 1995 is inadequate in its coverage and does not serve the purpose that it had intended to.

The article recommends that there is an urgent need to replace the existing criteria for price control using monopoly and market dominance measures with the criteria of ‘essentiality’ of drugs, which would have a maximum spill-over effect on the entire therapeutic category.

In addition the paper says that this critical change is also ‘likely to prevent the present trend of circumventing price controls through non-standard combinations and at the same time would discourage producers moving away from controlled to non-controlled drugs’.

Just as mentioned in the draft NPPP 2011, the ‘Harvard School of Public Health’ article of 2007 reiterates that direct price control should be applied on formulations rather than basic drugs, which is likely to minimize intra-industry distortion in transaction.

The paper also points out, “Huge trade margins are a rule rather than exceptions in Indian drug industry. In view of this, there is a need to fix ceiling on trade margins which could lead to significant downward influence on medicine prices. Finally, we argue that to ensure drug security in India, a strong regulatory institutions need to be established.”

It is interesting to note that NPPP 2011 draws so much similarity with the ‘Harvard School of Public Health’ article published way back in 2007.

Basic objectives of a Drug Policy:

The ‘Drug Policy 1986’ clearly enunciated the basic policy objectives relating to drugs and pharmaceuticals in India, as follows:

Ensuring abundant availability of medicines at reasonable price and quality for mass consumption.
Strengthening the domestic capability for cost effective, quality production and exports of pharmaceuticals by reducing barriers to trade in the pharmaceutical sector.
Strengthening the system of quality control over drug and pharmaceutical production and distribution.
Encouraging R&D in the pharmaceutical industry in a manner compatible with the country’s needs and with particular focus on diseases endemic or relevant to India by creating an conducive environment.
Creating an incentive framework for the pharmaceutical and drug industry which promotes new investment into pharmaceutical industry and encourages the introduction of new technologies and new drugs.

After having completed around 25 years since then, it is high time for the government to ponder and assess whether the successive drug policies have delivered to the nation the desirable outcome as enunciated above.

Even the draft NPPP 2011 does not seem to have made any conscious attempt to make any amend in these areas either.

The draft NPPP 2011 offered another opportunity for a robust beginning:

Many of us will know that the 2002 Drug Policy was challenged in the Karnataka High Court, which by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued stay on the implementation of the Policy. This order was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 but observed as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated 15.2.2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and life saving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and life saving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

When nothing tangible happened thereafter, in October 2011, the honorable Supreme court against another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) asked the Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) to submit separate affidavits to the court on November 17, 2011 explaining their seriousness to bring the essential drugs under price control.

As a result of the November 17, 2011 order of the Supreme Court, it now appears that to put a new pharmaceutical policy in place in an unprecedented hurry, with the ‘essentiality’ criteria for price control, the Government lost another golden opportunity for a new and robust beginning with a comprehensive and well thought out national drug policy.

Draft NPPP 2011: Is it just to satisfy the Supreme Court of India?

The overall objective of any ‘Drug Policy’ is indeed to help accelerating all-round inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry and to make it a force to reckon with, in the global pharmaceutical arena. At the same time, the policy should help creating an appropriate ecosystem to improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price by the entire population of the nation.

As stated above, in NPPP 2011, fixing Ceiling Price (CP) based on ‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ approach for 348 drugs falling under National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and not beyond, could make sense, especially keeping in mind the direction given by the honorable Supreme Court of India on March 2003 and October 2011 on the subject, as indicated above.

However, just one pronged approach with the drug price control mechanism to address the issue of improving access to modern medicines in no way can be considered as a holistic approach to achieve objectives of a Drug policy. Isolated and incoherent initiatives of price control (though important) in the draft NPPP 2011, without taking the big picture into consideration, appears to be foolhardy.

A lurking fear creeps in though, has NPPP 2011 been drafted by the Government just to satisfy the Supreme Court of India with the incorporation of ‘essentiality’ criteria for price control medicines?

12^th Five Year Plan increases public spending towards health:

In the 12^th Five Year Plan of India commencing 2013, the country is expected to spend 2.5% of its GDP for health. Currently, public spending on health as a percentage to the GDP being at 0.9% is among the lowest in the world and against 1.8% of Sri Lanka, 2.3% of China and 3.3% of Thailand, just to name a few.

Recently another expert committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Srinath Reddy suggested that high ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenditure of the people of India, should be significantly reduced by doubling the public spending on health. The committee also commented, “Increasing public health spending to our recommendations will result in a five-fold increase in real per capita health expenditures by the government from Rs 670 in 2011-12 to Rs 3,432 by 2021-22.”

Health coverage for ‘outpatient treatment’ in India is a necessity:

It is important to note from the above report that outpatient treatment in India accounts for around 78% of the ‘out-of-pocket’ expenses, with medicines accounting for 72% of the total outpatient health expenditure. Unfortunately, there is hardly any cover available to the common man for outpatient treatment in India, even by those holding some form of health insurance coverage.

A comparison of private (out of pocket) health expenditure:

Following is a comparison between ‘out of pocket’ expenses between India and its closer neighbors:

1. Pakistan: 82.5% 2. India: 78% 3. China: 61% 4. Sri Lanka: 53% 5. Thailand: 31% 6. Bhutan: 29% 7. Maldives: 14%

(Source: The Lancet)

Taming drug price inflation has not helped improving access to medicines:

It is quite clear from the following that food prices impact health more than medicine costs:

Year	Pharma Price Increases	Food Inflation
2008	1.1%	5.6%
2009	1.3%	8.0%
2010	0.5%	14.4%

Source: CMIE

Over one third of Indian population can’t afford to spend on medicines:

While framing the draft NPPP 2011, the Government should have kept in mind that a population of around 35% in India, still lives Below the Poverty Line (BPL) and will not be able to afford any expenditure even towards essential medicines.

Adding more drugs in the list of essential medicines and even bringing them all under stringent price control will not help the country to resolve this critical issue.

Why 40 years of stringent price control failed to make medicines ‘affordable’?

In my view, there is no ‘one size fits all’ type of definition for affordability of medicines, just like any other essential commodities, especially when around 78% of healthcare expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ in our country. Any particular price point may appear affordable to some, but will still remain unaffordable to many, especially in a country like India.

The initiatives taken by the government for price control of medicines since the last four decades have certainly been able to make the drug prices in India one of the lowest in the world coupled with intense cut throat market competition.

Unfortunately, this solitary measure has failed to improve access to modern medicines to the common man significantly due to various other critical reasons, which we hardly discuss and deliberate upon with as much passion as price control.

Despite so many drug price control orders, even today 47% and 31% of hospitalization in rural and urban areas, respectively, are financed by private loans and selling of assets by individuals.

Multi-dimensional approach to improve access to affordable medicines:

Access to healthcare and affordable medicines can be improved through an integrated and comprehensive approach of better access to doctors, diagnostics and hospitals, along with an efficient price regulatory mechanism for each component of healthcare cost including medicines. We should not forget that in India over 46% of patients travel beyond 100 km to seek medical care even today. (Source: Technopak & Philips (2010) Accessible Healthcare: Joining the Dots Now, New Delhi).

Healthcare infrastructure in India is severely constrained by lack of trained healthcare professionals, limited access to diagnostics/treatment and availability of quality medicines. Consequently, the supply of healthcare services falls significantly short of demand.

The current figure of 9 beds per 10,000 population in India is far from the world average of 40 beds per 10,000 people. Similarly, for every 10,000 Indians, there are just 6 doctors available in the country, while China has 20 doctors for the same number of population. Without proper equipment and doctors to diagnose and treat patients, medicines are of little value to those who need them most.

Thus, drug price control alone, though important, cannot improve access to healthcare without creation of adequate infrastructure required to ensure effective delivery and administration of medicines, together with appropriate financial cover for health.

Encourage healthy competition among healthcare providers:

Effective penetration of various types of innovative health insurance schemes will be one of the key growth drivers for the inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, as desired by many in India.

Simultaneously, there is a need to promote tough competition within those healthcare providers to make them more and more cost-efficient while providing greater patients’ satisfaction. In that process, all elements of healthcare expenditure like physicians’ fees, diagnostic tests, hospital beds and medicines could be made affordable to the common man.

In such competitive environment, the patients will be the net gainers, as we have seen in other knowledge based industries, like the telecom sector with incredible increase in the tele-density of the country.

The drug policy should also include an equally transparent system to ensure that errant players within the healthcare sector, who will be caught with profiteering motives for manipulation of drug formulations and dosage forms to avoid price control, are brought to justice with exemplary punishments, as will be defined by law.

The Government won’t be able to do it all alone:

The Government needs to partner with the private sector to address India’s acute healthcare challenges through various Public-Private-Partnership (PPPs) initiatives.

Recent examples of successful PPP in the health sector include outsourcing ambulance services, mobile medical units, diagnostics and urban health centers to private NGOs. PPP should adequately cover both primary and specialty healthcare, including clinical and diagnostic services, insurance, e-healthcare, hospitals and medical equipment.

Conclusion:

‘Drug price’ is universally recognized as one of the important elements, though not the sole element, to improve access to modern medicines. India is no exception.

This time around, the draft NPPP 2011 has come out in the public domain again with a flawed recipe, though the policy makers have tried to include some welcoming changes in it. The authors of the draft policy seem to be still preoccupied and obsessed with addressing the symptoms of ‘affordability of medicines’ rather than focusing on the larger issue of ‘access to modern medicines’ in a holistic way.

By not addressing the all important ‘access’ related critical issues in the draft NPPP 2011 rather comprehensively, dismantling the operational ‘silos’ and inter-ministerial administrative boundaries, the architects of NPPP 2011 seem to have missed the bus, yet again, in their endeavor to help achieving a significant dimension of the long overdue ‘health for all’ objective of the nation.

The Game Changer: Effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model

Posted on November 20, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Since quite some time global pharmaceutical majors have been operating within the confines of high risk – high reward R&D based business model with blockbuster drugs (annual sales of over US$ 1 billion).

Blockbuster brands, mostly in the chronic-care segments have been driving the business growth, since long, of the global R&D based pharmaceutical companies. Many such blockbuster drugs are now at the end of their patent life like, Lipitor (Atorvastatin) of Pfizer.

Patent expiry of such drugs, especially in the environment of patent cliff, could make a severe adverse impact on the revenue and profit stream of many companies, leading to drastic cost cut including retrenchment of a large number of employees.

In addition ballooning costs of R&D failure coupled with the decisions of the governments all across the world, including the US , EU and even in Asia, to contain the healthcare cost – the recent examples being Germany, Spain, Korea and China, have become the major cause of concern with the business model of blockbuster drugs.

Availability of low cost and high quality generics coupled with increasing consumerism, growing relevance of outcome-based pricing model are making the global pharmaceutical business models more and more complex.

The need to realign with the new climate:

Accenture in its report titled, “The Era of Outcomes – Emerging Pharmaceutical Business Models for High Performance” had commented, “Unless pharmaceutical companies act now to adjust to the new climate, they will be pressured to sell their proprietary drugs at low profits because the market will no longer bear the premium price”.

‘Blockbuster drugs’ business model is under stress:

Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made the global pharmaceutical industry a high-margin/high growth industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs, with reasonable investments on R&D, have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits mostly involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for ‘cure’ of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call and enormously expensive.

Thus the blockbuster model of growth engine of the innovator companies effectively relying on a limited number of ‘winning horses’ to achieve their business goal and meeting the Wall Street expectations is becoming more and more challenging. It is well known that such business model will require a rich and vibrant R&D pipeline, always.

The changing scenario with depleting R&D pipeline:

The situation has started changing since quite some time from now. In 2007, depleting pipeline of the blockbuster drugs hit a new low. It is estimated that around U.S. $ 140 billion of annual turnover from blockbuster drugs will get almost shaved off due to patent expiry by the year 2016.

IMS reports that in 2010 revenue of more than U.S. $ 27 billion was adversely impacted due to patent expiry. Another set of blockbuster drugs with similar value turnover will go off patent by the end of 2011.

According to IBIS World, the following large brands will go off patent in 2011 and 2012:

Patent Expiry in 2011	Condition	Company	2010 US Sales $ billion
Lipitor	cholesterol	Pfizer	5.3
Zyprexa	antipsychotic	Eli Lily	2.5
Levaquin	antibiotics	Johnson & Johnson	1.3

Patent Expiry in 2012	Condition	Company	2010 US Sales $ billion
Plavix	anti-platelet	Bristol-Myers Squibb / Sanofi-Aventis	6.2
Seroquel	antipsychotic	AstraZeneca	3.7
Singulair	asthma	Merck	3.2
Actos	type 2 diabetes	Takeda	3.4
Enbrel	arthritis	Amgen	3.3

Proactive shift is required from ‘Blockbuster’ to Niche buster’ model:

Companies with blockbuster-drug business model without adequate molecules in the research pipeline may need to readjust their strategy even if they want to pursue similar R&D focused business model effectively.

Brand proliferation, though innovative, within similar class of molecules competing in the same therapy area, is making the concerned markets highly fragmented with no clear brand domination. In a situation like this, outcome based pricing and competitive pressure will no longer help attracting premium price for such brands anymore.

Being confronted with this kind of situation, many companies are now shifting their R&D initiatives from larger therapy areas with blockbuster focus like, cardiovascular, diabetes, hypertension and more common types of cancer to high value and technologically more complex niche busters in smaller therapy areas like, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinsonism, rare types of cancer, urinary incontinence, schizophrenia, specialty vaccines etc.

This trend is expected to continue for quite some time from now.

Generics to continue to drive the growth in the emerging markets:

It is expected that the global pharmaceutical market will record a turnover of US $1.1 trillion by 2014 with the growth predominantly driven by the emerging markets like, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, Turkey and Korea growing at 14% – 17%, while the developed markets are expected to grow just around 3-6% during that period.

The United States of America will continue to remain the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, with around 3-6% growth.

IMS predicts that over the next five years the industry will have the peak period of patent expiry amounting to sales of more than US$ 142 billion, further intensifying the generic competition.

The experts believe that the growth in the emerging markets will continue to come primarily from the generic drugs.

Integrated combo-business model with ‘niche busters’ and generic drugs:

Some large companies have already started imbibing an integrated combo-business model of innovative niche busters and generic medicines, focusing more on high growth emerging pharmaceutical markets.

The global generic drug market was worth US $107.8 billion USD in 2009 and is estimated to be of US$ 129.3 billion by 2014 with a CAGR of around 10%. However, there are some companies, who are still ‘sticking to knitting’ with the traditional R&D ‘blockbuster drugs’ based business models.

The process of innovative and generic drugs ‘combo-business model’ was initiated way back in 1996, when Novartis AG was formed with the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. At that time the later became the global generic pharmaceutical business arm of Novartis AG, which continued to project itself as a research-based global pharmaceutical company. With this strategy Novartis paved the way for other innovator companies to follow this uncharted frontier, as a global ‘combo-business strategy’. In 2009 Sandoz was reported to have achieved 19% of the overall net sales of Novartis, with a turnover of US$ 7.2 billion growing at 20%.

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

Similarly another global pharma major Sanofi is now seriously trying to position itself as a major player in the generics business, as well, with the acquisition of Zentiva, an important player in the European generics market. Zentiva, is a leading generic player in the markets like, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Romania, Poland and Russia, besides the Central and Eastern European region. In addition to Zentiva, in the same year 2009, Sanofi also acquired other two important generic players, Medley in Brazil and Kendrick in Mexico.

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

Keeping a close vigil on these developments, even Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical player of the world, has started curving out a niche for itself in the global market of fast growing generics, following the footsteps of other large global players like, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo and Abbott.

Yet another strategy – splitting the company for greater focus on both generic and innovative pharmaceuticals:

In the midst of the above trend, on October 19, 2011 Chicago based Abbott announced with a ‘Press Release’ its plan to separate into two publicly traded companies, one in diversified medical products and the other in research-based pharmaceuticals. The announcement said, the diversified medical products company will consist of Abbott’s existing diversified medical products portfolio, including its branded generic pharmaceutical, devices, diagnostic and nutritional businesses, and will retain the Abbott name. The research-based pharmaceutical company will include Abbott’s current portfolio of proprietary pharmaceuticals and biologics and will be named later. Both companies will be global leaders in their respective industries, the Press Release said.

Such splits are based on the belief of many that in the pharmaceutical business two entirely different business models of new drug discovery and generics will need different kind of business focus, which may not complement each other for the long term growth of the overall business.

OTC Switch of prescription drugs will continue:Prescription to ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ switch of pharmaceutical products is another business strategy that many innovator companies have started imbibing from quite some time, though at a much larger scale now.This strategy is helping many global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the Europe and the US to expand the indication of the drugs and thereby widening the patients’ base.Recent prescription to OTC switches will include products like, Losec (AstraZeneca), Xenical (Roche), Zocor (Merck), etc. Perhaps Lipitor (Pfizer) will join this bandwagon soon.

Conclusion:

PwC in its publication titled “Pharma 2020: The Vision” articulated:

“The current pharmaceutical industry business model is both economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets. In order to make the most of these future growth opportunities, the industry must fundamentally change the way it operates.”

Quite in tandem a gradually emerging new ‘pharmaceutical sales and marketing model’ has started emphasizing the need for innovative collaboration and partnership within the global pharmaceutical industry by bundling medicines with patient oriented services. In this model, besides marketing just the medicines, as we see today, the expertise of a company to effectively deliver some key services like, patient monitoring and disease management could well be the cutting edge for business excellence. In this evolving scenario, those companies, which will be able to offer better value with an integrated mix of medicines with services, are expected to be on the winning streak.

Be that as it may, effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model, is expected to be “The Game Changer’ in the new ball game of the global pharmaceutical industry in the years ahead.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: pharmaceutical

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain

Pharmaceutical innovation and Public Health Interest: Ways to achieving the dual objectives

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

Indian Pharmaceutical Landscape: Looking back (2011), Looking Ahead (2012)

Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk

Draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011: A flawed recipe

The Game Changer: Effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model