Tag Archives: pharmaceutical

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?

Posted on by
Reply

At the very outset, I pay my homage to the departed soul of our industry colleague respected Amar Lulla, former joint managing director of Cipla, who passed away on Friday, April 22, 2011 after a prolonged battle against cancer.

As we know, “Merger and Acquisition (M&A)” is an inorganic growth tool of any business. In this model growth in business operations arise from value creation through mergers or takeovers of other companies, rather than from increase in the company’s own existing business activities.

On April 13, 2011, quoting a study released by Burrill & Co, a noted life sciences investment firm, ‘Fierce Pharma’ reported that “drug makers’ deal making over the past 10 years has utterly and completely failed to build value in the industry. Big Pharma has actually lost almost $1 trillion in value during the past decade.”

Big Pharmas lost value in the past decade through deal making:

Burrill argued: “The drug industry’s 17 most active buyers had a combined market value of $1.57 trillion at the end of 2000. By the end of 2010, that value had shrunk to $1.04 trillion–notwithstanding the $425 billion in acquisitions these companies made during the decade with a total loss of $955 billion.”

The report commented that global pharma majors could not make up non-delivery of innovative products through these acquisitions.

M&As triggered by in-market blockbuster products, were successful in the past:

It was observed that those M&As, which were triggered by in-market blockbuster products were successful in the past. Like for example:

Year M&A Product/Products
2000 Pfizer and Warner Lambert Lipitor
2006 Eli Lilly-ICOS Cialis
2008 Eli Lilly- ImClone Erbitux

However, when a company was acquired for products in development or R&D pipelines, it was observed that acquirer could not derive full benefits of their respective inorganic growth plans, as many of those projects did not fructify or could not be continued in the long run for various different reasons. I am not trying to go into those details in this article.

It is usually believed that healthcare companies with diversified interests along with pharmaceuticals and biotech business, like, diagnostic, devices and generic pharmaceuticals encountered much lesser growth pangs in the past. I reckon, it is for this reason, companies like, Abbott, J&J, Roche and Novartis registered overall better business performance than their pure pharmaceutical business counterparts like, Merck, Pfizer etc.

Only future will tell us whether high takeover prices, such as US$ 68 bn paid by Pfizer for Wyeth or US$ 46 bn of Roche for Genentech or US$ 41 bn of Merck for Schering-Plough, mainly to acquire the drug pipelines of the respective companies, can ultimately be justified or not. At this stage, it is indeed extremely difficult to quantify the transaction value of phase III drugs that Pfizer, Roche and Merck acquired with these mega deals.

However, about a couple of years ago ‘Forbes’ in its article titled, “Will Pfizer’s Merger Hurt Innovation?” published in January 26, 2009 commented as follows:

“Between 1998 and now, Pfizer has launched only one medicine with annual sales surpassing $1 billion, despite ploughing more than $60 billion into research and development. That drug, the pain med Lyrica, was already in development at Warner-Lambert when Pfizer bought it.” 

Other significant global M&A initiatives in 2010 were as follows:

Global Companies Value (US $ billion)
Sepracor by Dainippon Sumitomo 2.6
77% of Alcon (the eye care unit of Nestle) by Novartis 50
Millipore by Merck KGA 6
OSI Pharma by Astellas 4
King Pharma by Pfizer 3.6
BioVex by Amgen 1
Ratiopharm by Teva 5

In addition, work is in progress for some more M&A initiatives, like the hostile bid of US $ 20 billion of Sanofi Aventis for Genzyme in 2011. J&J’s offer of US $2.3 billion for vaccines of Crucell; Valeant’s hostile bid for Cephalon of US $ 5.7 billion, and J&J’s talk with Synthes for an acquisition with US $20 billion.

Emerging markets: the Eldorado:

At the same time, IMS Health reports that emerging markets will register a growth rate of 14% to 17% by 2014, significantly driven by generic pharmaceuticals, when the developed markets will be growing by 3% to 6% during this period. It is forecasted that the global pharmaceutical industry will record a turnover of US$1.1 trillion by this time.

Probably prompted by this overall market scenario, the global pharmaceutical majors are still trying to keep their heads above water through deal making and various collaborative initiatives. India, being one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical markets, has also started experiencing this consolidation process.

Real consolidation process in India commenced in 2006: The consolidation process in India started gaining momentum from the year 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan, although 2009 witnessed the biggest merger in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, thus far, in value terms, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India for US $4.6 billion.
This was widely believed to be a win-win deal for both the companies with Daiichi Sankyo leveraging the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy effectively, while Ranbaxy benefiting from the innovative products range of Daiichi Sankyo. This deal also established Daiichi Sankyo as one of the leading pharmaceutical generic manufacturers of the world, making the merged company a force to reckon with, in the space of both innovative and generic pharmaceuticals business.
Another mega acquisition soon followed:
In May 2010, the Pharma major in the US Abbott catapulted itself to number one position in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by acquiring the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with whopping US$3.72 billion. Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare at around 9 times of its sales multiple against around 4 times of the same paid by Daiichi Sankyo.

According to Michael Warmuth, senior vice-president, established products of Abbott the sales turnover of Abbott in India, after this acquisition, will grow from its current around US$ 480 million to US$2.5 billion by the next decade. 

Was the valuation right for the acquired companies?
Abbott had valued formulations business of Piramal Healthcare at about eight times of sales, which is almost twice of what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo paid for its US$4.6 billion purchase of a controlling stake in India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories in June 2008.

On the valuation, Warmuth of Abbott has reportedly commented “If you want the best companies you will pay a premium; however, we feel it was the right price.”

This is not surprising at all, as we all remember Daiichi Sankyo commented that the valuation was right for Ranbaxy, even when they wrote off US$3.5 billion on its acquisition.
In my opinion, considering the fact that not too many attractive acquisition targets are available within the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the valuation of any well performed Indian Pharmaceutical Company will continue to remain high, at least in the short to medium term… and why not, when the domestic pharmaceutical industry is growing so well, consistently?

M&As in India from 2006 to 2010:

Year

Indian Companies

Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type
2006
Matrix Labs Mylan

736

 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi

219

 Acquisition
Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo

4,600

 Acquisition
Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis

783

 Acquisition
2009
Orchid Chemicals Hospira

400

 Business Buyout
2010
Piramal Healthcare Abbott

3,720

 Business Buyout
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benkiser

726

 Acquisition

Collaborative deals in India from 2009 to 2011:

Year

Multinational Companies

 Indian Companies
2009
GSK Dr. Reddy’s Lab
Pfizer Aurobindo Pharma
2010
AstraZeneca Torrent
Abbott Cadila Healthcare
Pfizer Strides Arcolab
AstraZeneca Aurobindo Pharma
Pfizer Biocon
2011
Bayer Cadila Healthcare
MSD Sun Pharma

The Key driver for acquisition of large Indian companies:
Such strategies highlight the intent of the global players to quickly grab sizeable share of the highly fragmented IPM – the second fastest growing and one of the most important emerging markets of the world.
If there is one most important key driver for such consolidation process in India, I reckon it will undoubtedly be the strategic intent of the global companies to dig their heel deep into the fast growing Indian branded generic market, contributing over 99% of the IPM. The same process is being witnessed in other fast growing emerging pharmaceutical markets, as well, the growth of which is basically driven by the branded generic business.
Important characteristics to target the branded generic companies:
To a global acquirer the following seem to be important requirements while shortlisting its target companies:
• Current sales and profit volume of the domestic branded generic business • Level of market penetration and the rate of growth of this business • Strength, spread and depth of the product portfolio • Quality of the sales and marketing teams • Valuation of the business
Faster speed of consolidation process could slow down the speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India: Though quite unlikely, if the moderate valuation of large Indian companies starts attracting more and more global pharmaceutical majors, the speed of evolution of the ‘local generic pharmaceutical industry’ in the country could slow down, despite entry of newer smaller players in the market.

The global companies will then acquire a cutting edge on both sides of the pharmaceutical business, discovering and developing innovative patented medicines while maintaining a dominant presence in the fast growing emerging branded generics market across the world.
An alarm bell in the Indian Market for a different reason:
It has been reported that being alarmed by these developments, some industry insiders feel, “Lack of available funding is the main reason for the recent spurt in the sale of stakes in domestic companies”.
They have reportedly urged the Government to adequately fund the research and development (R&D) initiatives of the local Pharmaceutical Companies to ensure a safeguard against further acquisition of large Indian generic players by the global pharmaceutical majors. It is a fact that the domestic Indian companies do not have adequate capital to fund cost-intensive R&D projects in India even after having a significant cost arbitrage.
Will such consolidation process now gain momentum in India?
In my view, it will take some more time for acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. In the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space, as indicated above.
The number of high profile M&As of Indian pharma companies will significantly increase, as I mentioned earlier, when the valuation of the domestic companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the local players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.
It won’t be a cake walk either…not just yet:
Be that as it may, establishing dominance in the highly fragmented and fiercely competitive IPM will not be a ‘cakewalk’ for any company, not even for the global pharmaceutical majors. Many Indian branded generic players are good marketers too. Companies like, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Alkem, Mankind, Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) have proven it time and again, over a period of so many years.
The acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo did not change anything in the competition front. Currently the market share of Abbott, post M&A, including Solvay and Piramal Healthcare, comes to just around 6.2% followed by Cipla at 5.5% (Source: AIOCD). This situation in no way signifies domination by Abbott in the IPM, far from creating any oligopolistic pharmaceutical market in India.
Thus the pharmaceutical market in the country will continue to remain fragmented with cut-throat competition from the existing and the newer tough minded, innovative and determined local branded generic players having cost arbitrage, cerebral power and untiring spirit of competitiveness with a burning desire to win.
Simultaneously, some of the domestic pharmaceutical companies are in the process of creating a sizeable Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) sector to service the global pharmaceutical market.
Conclusion:
In my view, it does not make long term business sense to pay such unusually high prices for the branded generics business of any Indian company. Besides the report of Burrill & Co., we also have with us examples of some of the Indian pharmaceutical acquisitions in the overseas market are not working satisfactorily as the regulatory requirements for the low cost generics drugs were changed in those countries.
Most glaring example is the acquisition of the German generic company Betapharm by DRL for US$ 570 million in 2006. It was reported that like Piramals, a significant part of the valuation of Betapharm was for its trained sales team. However, being caught in a regulatory quagmire, the ultimate outcome of this deal turned sour for DRL.
Could similar situation arise in India, as well? Who knows? What happens then to such expensive acquisitions, if for example, prescriptions by generic names are made mandatory by the Government within the country, despite intensive lobbying efforts?

Be that as it may, in India also, a study like, ‘Burrill Report” could be quite useful to ascertain whether or not the deal making of global and local drug majors in the country over a ten year period commencing from 2006 onwards, has succeeded to create desired stakeholder value.

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.

Dissapointing: No proposal of ‘Healthcare Reform’ in the Union Budget of India for 2011-12: China rolled it out in 2009.

Posted on by
Reply

January 15, 2011 issue of ‘The Lancet’ in an article titled, “Learning from others” states the following:

“Having universal coverage through a public commitment does have costs, including public costs. The proportion of national expenditure on health that is met by the government is 26% in India and 45% in China. Or, to look at a related contrast, while government expenditure on health care in India is only around 1·1% of its GDP, it is around 1·9% in China. One need not be a genius to see that if the government of a country is ready to spend more on health, it could expect better results in terms of the health of the people.”

While comparing India with China, I reckon, one should take into account of larger disease burden in India as compared to China and the cost that India pays due to slow progress of reform processes in a democratic framework with open and free society and the vibrant outspoken media in the country. Further, the healthcare reform processes in China started over a decade earlier than India, resulting in a significant difference in the healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and the healthcare financing systems of both the countries, over a period of time.

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation:

Access to safe drinking water in India may be comparable to other emerging economies, but sanitation condition in India needs radical improvement. According to World Health Organization (WHO, 2009) the Access to potable water and improved sanitation in those countries are as follows:

Country Drinking Water  (% population) Sanitation                     (% population)
India 89 28
Brazil 91 77
China 88 65
Mexico 95 81
South Africa 93 59

Key issues in the Public Hospitals:

The ethical issues, which the patients face, especially, in the hospitals of India, I reckon, have not been reported for China by the Transparency International.

Transparency International India (2005) had reported the following seven key issues and irregularities experienced by the patients at the Government Hospitals in India:

  1. Medicines unavailable: 52%
  2. Doctors suggest a visit to their private clinic: 37%
  3. Doctors refer to private diagnostic centers: 31%
  4. Over-prescription of medicines: 24%
  5. Bribes demanded by staff: 20%
  6. Diagnostics tests done even when unnecessary: 18%
  7. Doctors are absent: 13%

All these continue to happen in India, with no respite to patients, despite ‘Hippocratic Oath’ being taken by the medical profession and the new MCI guidelines for the doctors being in place within the country. Moreover, a miniscule spend of 1% of the GDP by the Government of India towards public healthcare of the nation, is indeed a shame.

Healthcare Reform in China:

Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:
China in 1997 took its first reform measures to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.
Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China:
The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicates that out of pocket spending on healthcare services more than doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.
Series of healthcare reforms were effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address the situation  prevailing at that time.
The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:
The core principle of the new phase of the healthcare reform process in China is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will assume a critical role.
The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.
Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines in China:
Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.
Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:
Chinese government will monitor the effective implementation and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.
It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.
Drug price regulation and supervision in China:
The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.
As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Besides Democracy, China has something to learn from India too:

The article, as mentioned above, from ‘The Lancet’ concludes by saying that unlike China, the real progress in India has come out of public discussion and demonstration within the democratic set-up in India. One such program is distribution of cooked mid-day meals to school children and selected interventions in child development in pre-school institutions. Such programs are currently not available in China for development of proper physical and mental health of, especially, the children of the marginalized section of the society

Conclusion:
There exists a sharp difference between India and China in the critical healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of public funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite the same in India, because of various reasons.
High economic growth in both the countries has also led to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.
To effectively address the critical issues related to health of its population, the Chinese Government has already announced a blueprint outlining its new healthcare reform measures for the next ten years. How will the Government of India respond to this situation for the new decade that has just begun?

It was very dissapointing to learn from the Union Budget speech of the Finance Minister of India for 2011-12 that the perspective of our Government on the importance of healthcare for the fellow citizens of India, still remains indifferent.

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.

Quick implementation of the undiluted ‘Central Drug Authority (CDA)’ Bill is essential for emerging India

Posted on by
Reply

Many industry experts after having evaluated the provisions of the original draft proposal for forming a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) in the country, commended and supported this laudable initiative of the Government. This Bill also known as, “The Drugs & Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill No.LVII of 2007 to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940” was introduced in the ‘Rajya Sabha’ on August 21 2007 and was thereafter referred to ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee of Health and Family Welfare’ for review. The Committee also has submitted its recommendations to the Government since quite some time. However, the fact still remains that the proposed CDA Bill has not seen the light of the day, as yet.
Mashelkar Committee Recommendation:
It is high time to consider the recommendations of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar Committee on the subject and make amendments in Act to facilitate creation of a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) and introduce centralized licensing for manufacturing for sale, export and distribution of drugs.
Seven reasons for the dire need of the CDA in India:
I firmly believe that the formation of the ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ will provide the following benefits to the Industry and also the Government:
1. Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
2. Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
3. Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
4. Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
5. Implementing uniform enforcement action for banned and irrational drugs
6. Creating a pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
7. Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.
Major countries have similar set up even within a federal system:
All major countries of the world have a strong federal drug control and administration system in place for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Like for example, despite strongly independent states within the federal structure of the U.S., the US – FDA is a unified and fully empowered federal government entity.
Similarly, coming together of many independent countries in Europe had led to the need for a pan-European drug control agency. This responsibility was vested on to the ‘European Medicine Agency (EMEA)’ with overriding pan-European authority and powers within the European Union (EU).
Thus, a single Central Authority that administers and regulates both pharmaceutical manufacturing and research is an absolute necessity in India’s bid to be a global hub for drug discovery.
The interim measure:
In my view, till CDA is formed, registration and marketing authorization for all new drugs and fixed-dose combinations should only be granted by Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). I would emphasize, it is essential that a smooth transition takes place from the existing regulatory environment to the proposed CDA, carefully tightening all the loose knots in the process. All necessary infrastructures along with the required personnel must be in place, so that all permissions are granted to applicants within stipulated timeframe.
The watershed regulatory reform initiative should not get diluted:
The CDA Bill is widely considered as a watershed regulatory reform initiative in the pharmaceuticals space of India. This reform process, besides offering all other benefits as discussed above, would also be able  to update the legislation, considering significant advances the country has made since the last five decades, especially in the areas of clinical research, treatment methods, and sophisticated diagnostic and medical devices.
Conclusion:
It now appears, the Government could revive the CDA Bill and reintroduce it in the Parliament, sooner. It was to be introduced in its monsoon session. However, the plan did not fructify, as the Parliament could not function due to a logjam created by our politicians.
It is worth noting that the proposed centralize drug licensing mechanism was vehemently opposed by the state drug authorities and some section of the industry. The stated position of the opponents to the CDA Bill apprehends that the centralized structure will not be able to deliver, as the requisite infrastructure and manpower for the same are not in place, as yet.
This development bring out to the fore the lurking fear that the proposal to centralize drug licensing as a part of the proposed law, very unfortunately, may eventually get quite diluted because of vested interests.

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.

The issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India: An “Ostrich Syndrome’

Posted on by
Reply

Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

In November 7, 2009, Financial Express reported with a headline, “Generic drug companies see a bitter pill in counterfeit“, because some believe that it has an in-built intellectual property right connotation.
The WHO debate:

‘Intellectual property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported as follows:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told Intellectual Property Watch there is a “hidden agenda” against generics from countries like Brazil.

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generics medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

In response to such allegations the International Federation on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) released a document titled, “ten principles on counterfeit medicines” and categorically stated that “patents have nothing to do with counterfeiting and counterfeiting has nothing to do with patents.”

In this seemingly volatile scenario, the key point to understand is the definition of a ‘Counterfeit Drug’.

The dictionary definition:
The word ‘Counterfeit’ may be defined as follows:
1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud
2. To carry on a deception or dissemble
4. To make fraudulent copies of something valuable
5. A fraudulent imitation.
What does the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act say?
Presumably in the spirit of the above definition, the Drugs and cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India has specified that manufacturing or selling of the following types of drugs are punishable offence:
Section 17: Misbranded drugs
Section 17-A: Adulterated drugs
Section 17-B: Spurious drugs
The question therefore arises, as misbranding could involve trademark and design, why does it fall under D&CA?
This was done in the past by the law makers, as they believed that any attempt to deliberately and fraudulently pass off any drug as something, which it really is not, could create a serious public health issue, leading to even loss of lives.
Be that as it may, the pharmaceutical industry all over the world sincerely believes that counterfeit drugs involve heinous crime against humanity.

Another argument:

Some voices in India have also expressed that ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ are a Health issue. Why are we then mixing up non-health IPR issues like trademarks and designs along with it?

Should the definition of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ cover all types of medicines, which are not genuine?

Definition of counterfeit drugs should, therefore, cover the entire gamut of medicines, which are not genuine. Such medicines could be a fraudulent version of patented, generic or even traditional medicines and have nothing to do with patents or patent infringements.
At the same time it sounds very reasonable that a medicine that is authorized for marketing by the regulatory authority of one country but not by another country should not be regarded as counterfeit on this particular ground in any country, unless it has been made available fraudulently. It will be absolutely improper for anyone to term generic drugs as counterfeits, in the same way.

The magnitude of the problem:

International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force (IMPACT) reported in 2006 as follows:

“Indian pharmaceutical companies have suggested that in India’s major cities, one in five strips of medicines sold is a fake. They claim a loss in revenue of between 4% and 5% annually. The industry also estimates that spurious drugs have grown from 10% to 20% of the total market.”

CDSCO surveys on ‘Spurious’ and ‘Sub-standard’ drugs in India:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India has released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010.

Year Drugs samples tested % of sub-standard drugs % of spurious drugs Prosecution for crime Persons arrested
2006 – 07

34738

5.8

0.22

115

12
2007 – 08

39117

6.2

0.19

120

122
2008 – 09

45145

5.7

0.34

220

133
2009 -10

39248

4.95

0.29

138

147

TOTAL

158248

5.66

0.26

593

414

It is indeed very surprising to note from the above CDSCO report that from 2006 to 2010 the number of both arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime in India is abysmally low.

To assess the magnitude of the menace of counterfeit drugs, Financial Express dated November 12, 2009 reported that much hyped “world’s largest study on counterfeit drugs” conducted by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India with the help of the Drug Controller General of India’s office, has come to the following two key conclusions:
1. Only 0.046% of the drugs in the Indian market were spurious
2. Only 0.1% of drugs are of sub-standard quality in India

Is there really nothing to worry about?

From these reports, it appears that India, at this stage, has nothing to worry about this public health hazard!

It is indeed equally baffling to understand, why did the government keep ‘misbranded drugs’, as specified in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, outside the purview of this study.
In my opinion, the above recent survey has raised more questions than what it had attempted to answer. Such questions are expected to be raised not only by the pharmaceutical industry of India, its stakeholders and the civil society at large, but by the international community, also.
The problem of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ is more prevalent in countries where regulatory enforcement is weak:
The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus it is generally believed that the issue of counterfeit drugs is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is weak.
A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits.
The role of ‘The World health Organization (WHO)’:
To effectively eliminate this global menace, the leadership role of the WHO is extremely important. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing menace of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier organization to address the needs of the global public health issues and especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a key and much more proactive role in this matter.

Conclusion:
All stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the health hazards posed by counterfeit medicines in India. Authorities and organizations like the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and its regulatory and enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, patients, all pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, wholesalers and retailers should collaborate to play a very active and meaningful role in curbing the counterfeit drugs from reaching the innocent patients.

Instead of all these, as we witness today, the country keeps on demonstrating an ‘Ostrich Syndrome’, shouting from the roof top, as it were, that no health hazards due to prevalence of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ exist in India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Social Media – an evolving new-age powerful communication tool for the Pharmaceutical Industry, both global and local

Posted on by
Reply

David Edelman in his article titled, “Branding in the Digital Age:You’re Spending your Money in All the Wrong Places”, published in the ‘Harvard Business Review’  dated December 2010, commented the following:

“Consumers today connect with brands in fundamentally new ways, often through media channels that are beyond manufacturers’ and retailers control. That means traditional marketing strategies must be redesigned to accord with how brand relationships have changed.”

I reckon, broadly, this is applicable to the Pharmaceutical Industry, as well, in the current scenario.

Today, we all are witnessing that the opportunities to share information within the communities and groups with effective use of social media like ‘Twitter’, ‘YouTube’, ‘Facebook’, ‘Linked-in’, blogs etc. are increasing by manifold, every passing day, with amazing speed. A very significant number of internet users across the world, are now quite actively taking part through social media in various areas of their interest.

The social networking site ‘Facebook’ claimed a few months back that it has connected over 400 million users all over the world and over 9.6 million users just in India with 20 million Indians using Internet every day. It is also interesting to note that each day about 68.5% of online population in the country visits social networking sites.

With 80% of the internet users currently searching for medical, health and product related information through cyber media, the importance of these powerful channels to engage interested stakeholders and groups in a meaningful dialogue on relevant products, services and issues, has increased by manifold. The pharmaceutical industry can no longer afford to ignore or even remain indifferent to this emerging trend.

Many global pharmaceutical majors having realized the future potential of cyber connectivity, have already started experimenting with social media, which are indeed outstanding byproducts of a disruptive innovation of the millennium, called ‘Internet’. In not too distant future, the pharmaceutical players are also expected to make the best use of social media not only to promote their products and services, but also to fulfill their obligation towards corporate social responsibilities.

The new-age marketing tool:

With more and more doctors not giving adequate time and even showing reluctance to meet the medical representatives and the important hospitals following suit, the global pharmaceutical companies are now in search of new and even more effective marketing tools.

To get the marketing communications across, to important target audiences, many of them have started experimenting, quite seriously, with the digital world. Effective networking media like ‘Facebook’ , ‘YouTube’, ‘MySpace’ and ‘Twitter’ are showing promises to become powerful online pharmaceutical marketing tools.

Global pharmaceutical companies have already started ‘testing the water’:

Examples of global pharmaceutical giants who have already started using this new age media for pharmaceutical marketing, in varying scale, are as follows:

1. Bayer uses ‘Facebook’ page to promote its Aspirin for women. For young people of the UK, suffering from diabetes, the company has also come out with an online blood glucose monitoring system.

2. Merck is using ‘Facebook’ to promote its cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil

3. GlaxoSmithKline is using ‘YouTube’ for ‘restless-legs syndrome’ awareness film. The popularity of this video spot perhaps has prompted the company to come out with its own ‘YouTube’ channel last year with a name, ‘GSKvision’.

4. AstraZeneca is also using ‘YouTube’ for a program called ‘My Asthma Story’ related to their anti-asthma drug Symbicort.

5. Johnson & Johnson’s ‘You Tube’ channel has now over 90 videos

6. Novartis is using the social media dedicated to Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) to connect to healthcare professionals, patients groups and even individual patients.

7. Recent report of Pfizer’s new RSS feed and the plan for a unique ‘Pfacebook’ site for internal communication perhaps is an important step towards this direction. The company has also been reported to have teamed up with Private Access to create a social networking website to bring clinical researchers and the patients together.

8. Boehringer Ingelheim has also started using the ‘Twitter’ since 2008

The reasons for using the social media as a marketing tool:

Social media like, ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’, ‘YouTube’ etc. provide a very important platform towards patients’ outreach efforts of the pharmaceutical companies exactly in a format, which will be preferred by the target group.

With the help of new-age social media these companies are now joining communities to begin a dialogue with them. It has been reported that some of these companies have already created un-branded sites like, silenceyourrooster.com or iwalkbecause.org, to foster relationship with patients’ group through online activity, the contents of which have been generated by the users themselves of the respective social medium. With the help of click-through links these sites lead to the branded sites of the concerned companies.

As reported by TNS Media Intelligence, internet media spending of the global pharmaceutical companies increased by 36% to US$137 million, in 2008, which is significantly higher than their spending in Television advertisements.

Why is the entry in the new-age social media so slow?

Pharmaceutical companies are currently delving into marketing through cyber media with a very cautious approach, though the new social media will become more central to many global marketing strategies in not too distant future. The cautious approach by the pharmaceutical companies is primarily due to evolving regulatory requirements in this new space

In the USA, very recently the FDA cautioned the major players in the industry to refrain them from publishing any misleading communication through social media. This is primarily because of absence of any published guidelines for online pharmaceutical marketing. How to use this powerful social media for maximum marketing and other benefits will indeed be quite a challenging task, at this stage. Many pharmaceutical companies are, therefore, slow to use the social media to the fullest extent.

Not only in India, even in the developed countries like, the USA, there are no specific regulatory guidelines to promote pharmaceutical brands or create brand awareness through these media. This scenario holds good for most of the countries of the world, including Europe, Japan. Thus, in this much uncharted territory, as there are not enough foot-steps follow, the pharmaceutical companies are currently just ‘testing the water’. Most probably to fathom how far regulatory authorities will allow them to explore with this new media.

Effective use of social media is expected to be financially attractive:

Low costs associated with creating internet promotional inputs will make social media quite attractive to pharmaceutical and bio-pharma companies, not only as an effective marketing tool, but also in their other outreach program for the stakeholders. Various types of social media are expected to be significantly cost-effective in creating and executing successful pharmaceutical brand awareness and brand marketing campaigns, aiming at well-defined and the specific target groups.

Use of social media in India:

In India though the social media are currently growing at around 35% annually, their overall utilization as an important marketing tool has remained rather limited, thus far, with practically no significant usage by the Indian pharmaceutical industry. I reckon, it is about time that the important pharmaceutical players in the country start creating their own network of loyalists and engage them with this important communication tool to meaningful dialogues, involving their respective brands and/or services and related issues.

‘Proof of the pudding is in the eating’:

A recent report indicates that in 2007, well reputed computer maker Dell’s ‘Twitter’ activity brought in US$ half-million in new business to the company.

Thus the innovative use of the new-age social cyber-media promises immense potential to open a goldmine of opportunities for the global pharmaceutical industry.

Conclusion:

I reckon, the use of social media as an effective business communication tool, will start growing at a scorching pace in India, shortly.

Some large and even Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) have just initiated appropriate processes towards ‘Social Media Optimization’ involving their respective brands and related services. This is primarily aimed at improving awareness and increasing market share through significantly higher share of voice and more intense customer engagement.

With rapid increase in the numbers of such initiatives, there will probably be a sea change in the way stakeholder engagement plans are worked out by the industry in general and the pharmaceutical industry in particular, ushering a new dawn in the communication space of the business.

At the same time, we should realize that in this new ball game customers will really be the king and the quality of innovative usage of all powerful social media could well draw the decisive line between business communication success and failure.

By Tapan Ray

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

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry could well be a contender for global supremacy by the next decade, competing effectively with China

Posted on by
Reply

By the next decade of this millennium both India and China are expected to be the top two emerging markets of the world in the pharmaceutical sector, registering a scorching pace of growth all around. The quality of consistency and sustainability of growth, will determine who will be the main contender of supremacy and the ultimate winner in this game of wealth creation for the respective countries and be the ‘Eldorado’ of the global pharmaceutical companies.

The financial reform measures in the run up to the process of globalization started earlier in China, in 1980 as against 1990 in India. In that sense China took a plunge to be an active member of the ‘global village of commerce’ at least a decade earlier than India.

Reform process started earlier in China:

The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that China started creating and encouraging a large number of independently funded pharmaceutical R&D institutions to create an environment of innovation within the country. Many of these institutions are now viable profit centres, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on global ‘economies of scale’, Chinese pharmaceutical players have now become globally competitive, may be a shade better than India. Clear dominance of China in the business of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’ among many other, will vindicate this point. On the other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20% of the global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Moreover, in ANDA and DMF filings, as well, India is currently much ahead of China.

FDI in India and China:

The Pharmaceutical Industry in India has now started attracting increasing Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). As per the reply to question No. 615 tabled in the Parliament of India (Rajya Sabha) on November 25, 2009 by Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, from the year 2006-07 up to September 2009, India attracted FDI of US $ 817.30 million for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals with a compounded growth rate of around 60%. USA, Canada, Singapore, UAE and Mauritius contributed 82% to this FDI, which in turn helped significantly to fuel further development and growth of the Industry.

According to ‘The Survey of Foreign Investments in China’s Medicine Industry’ of the Government of China, the FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of the country for the three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million, over one third of which coming from Hong Kong and around 11% from the USA.

It is worth noting that the financial and policy reform measures were initiated in China much earlier, as compared to India, which in turn have enabled China to attract more FDIs in the pharmaceutical sector, thus far. In the new paradigm of the post product patent regime both the countries are expected to grow at a scorching pace attracting more and more FDIs for their respective countries.

In this article, I would like to focus on some of these comparisons to assess the progress made so far by both the countries, in a comparative yardstick and the key factors, which will decide the pace-setter.

Country ranking both in value and growth terms:

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh (India: 14) largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth (India: 10) largest market by 2015 and the third largest by 2020. Chinese pharmaceutical market is expected to grow by over 15% per annum in the next five years, which is higher than India.

Healthcare coverage of population:

China is racing ahead and gradually but surely distancing itself from India, widening the performance gap with rapid increase of domestic consumption of modern medicines. It is worth mentioning that as per WHO, the access to modern medicines in China is around 85% as against just 35% in India. Of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million of Chinese are covered by health insurance, another 250 million partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance. In India total number of people who are having some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.5% of the population.

Currently India is losing grounds to China mainly in healthcare infrastructure development, with inadequate healthcare delivery systems and delay in rolling out a long overdue comprehensive healthcare reform process in the country.

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to the globalization process:

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional hub of R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is paying rich dividends.
Department of Pharmaceuticals recently expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. This cannot be achieved just through investments of couple of million US $ through Public Private Partnership (PPP). A strong commitment of the Government to hasten regulatory reform processes will be the key factor. The new product patent regime for the pharmaceutical industry has ushered in a new paradigm, with the Government planning to strike a right balance between TRIPs compliant IPR regime and the ‘Public Interest’ and NOT one at the cost of the other.

India and China competing well in Pharma outsourcing business:

Since last 5 years both India and China have made rapid strides in the space of pharma outsourcing. Today the evolving business model of ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS)’, is shaping up quite well. To make India a global hub for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types, the pharmaceutical industry of the country has all the ingredients. India has the potential to emerge as a serious contender for global supremacy, in this fast growing sector, especially in ‘contract manufacturing’ area, having largest number of US-FDA approved manufacturing plants, outside the USA.

According to ‘Global Services”, in 2009 Pharmaceutical outsourcing market in China and India was of US $ 1.77 billion and US $ 1.42 billion, respectively with China growing at a faster pace. The future growth potential for both the countries is huge, as each enjoyed just 2% share of this outsourcing market in 2009.

It has been forecasted that China will have more environmental growth accelerators than India due to greater continuing fiscal stimulus and policy support by their Government, which could catapult the country ahead of India, just beyond 2010.

‘Country Attractiveness Index’ for clinical trials:

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a ‘Country Attractiveness Index (CAI)’ for clinical trials, for the use of, especially, the pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision on offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India.

Pharmaceutical patent filing:

In patent filing too China seem to be ahead of India. Based on WIPO PCT applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China. This will give an Indication how China is making rapid strides in R&D areas, as well.

Where India is regarded clearly as a preferred destination:

However, India is globally considered as a more mature arena for chemistry and drug-discovery activities than China. Most probably because of this reason, companies like, DRL, Aurigene, Advinus, Glenmark, Nicholas Piramal and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term deals with Multinational Companies (MNCs) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

Pharmaceutical exports, by end 2010:

India is currently an attractive pharmaceutical outsourcing destination across the globe. Pharmaceutical exports of India is currently far ahead of China. However, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) reports that China may reverse this trend by the end of 2010, establishing itself as the largest country for Pharmaceutical exports. In API exports China has already overtaken India, way back in 2007. The report titled, “The Changing dynamics of pharmaceutical outsourcing in Asia” indicates that in 2007 against API exports of U.S$ 1.7 billion of India, China clocked a figure of US$ 5.6 billion. By the end of 2010, China is expected to widen the gap further with API export of U.S$ 9.9 billion against India’s U.S$ 2.8 billion.

Korn/Ferry International reports that more and more Indian talent is being pulled to China to fill key roles, especially in the API sector, signaling ‘brain drain’ from India to China.

Conclusion:

As I said earlier and as has been reported by Korn/Ferry, China’s current overall infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to initiate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country. Government of India seems to be lacking in its commitment to play its role both as a provider and also as an effective enabler in this important space of ‘knowledge economy’ of the world.

India has all the potential to surge ahead with more rapid strides in this ball game. To achieve this cherished goal, the government, other stakeholders and the domestic pharmaceutical Industry should play the ball well, effectively, and in tandem.

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

India needs ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ to counter growing threat of dreaded rare diseases and simultaneously boost global growth potential of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Posted on by
Reply

An orphan disease is a rare and uncommon disease and an ‘Orphan Drug’ is a pharmaceutical substance that has been developed to treat an orphan disease. The US FDA defines a rare disease, with a prevalence of 1 in 5,000 of the general population, whereas in the European Union (EU) defines it as a disease with a prevalence of 5 in 10,000 of the population.

Around 6-8% of the world population is manifested by such rare diseases. There are around 5000 of reported rare diseases with an ascending growth trend.

Despite such trend, high drug development cost coupled with low return on investment, do not encourage many innovator pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in R&D initiatives for such drugs. However, this perception is fast changing, as we shall see below.

US took the first step to encourage commercialization of ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Public awareness drives for ‘Orphan Diseases’ first originated in the USA with the formation of a rare disease support group representing around 200,000 patients suffering from such diseases. This awareness campaign ultimately culminated into a path breaking legislation in the US named, ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ (ODA), in 1983. The key purpose of ODA was to incentivize initiatives towards development of such drugs to treat around 25 million Americans suffering from ‘Orphan diseases’. The incentives included:

- Funding towards investigation for “Orphan Disease’ treatment
- Tax credit for Clinical Research
- Waiver of fees for New Drug Application (NDA)
- Offering more lucrative incentive than product patent (product patent requires the drug to be novel), as the orphan designation of the product by the US FDA and product approval by them are the only requirements for 7 year market exclusivity of an ‘Orphan Drug’ for the same indication.
- Market exclusivity of ‘Orphan Drugs’ become effective from the date of regulatory approval, unlike product patent, product development time remains outside this period.
- The drugs, which are not eligible for product patent, may be eligible for market exclusivity as an ‘Orphan Drug’ by the US-FDA

Thanks to this Act, currently around 230 ‘Orphan Drugs’ are available in the US for the treatment of around 11 million patients suffering from rare diseases. With the help of ‘Human Genome Project’ more orphan diseases are expected to be identified and newer drugs will be required to treat these rare ailments of human population.

1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ODA in the US. A decade after in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

India needs ODA:

Unfortunately in India, we do not have any ODA, as of now. Such legislation could give a new fillip to the Indian Pharmaceutical and Bio-Pharmaceutical industry and at the same time usher in a new hope to thousands of patients suffering from rare diseases in India, with the availability of relatively lower cost medications to them.

The global market:

The global market of ‘Orphan Drugs’ is expected to grow to US $ 112 billion in 2014 from US $85 billion in 2009. Biotech products contribute around 70% of this turnover with relatively higher CAGR growth rate of around 7%. However, reluctance of the insurance companies to cover ‘Orphan Drugs’ due to higher price still remains a global issue.

Orphan drugs to create a paradigm shift in the Pharmaceutical Industry: says Frost & Sullivan:

“While the pharmaceutical industries have been focusing on ‘blockbuster’ small molecules (chemical drugs) for high revenue generation in the past, it is expected that in 5 years, around $90.0 billion worth of branded drugs will lose their exclusivity. The current economic situation plus the huge generic competition shifted the focus of pharmaceutical companies and they are moving to a new business model – ‘Niche busters’, also called Orphan drugs.”

It is believed that Orphan drugs will now offer an attractive opportunity to the pharmaceutical companies than ever before to significantly absorb the impact of the ‘Patent Cliff’. Various financial incentives provided by the governments of various countries under the ODA coupled with many smaller collaborative projects towards this direction will further encourage the global pharmaceutical players to develop ‘Orphan Drugs.

Currently, EU has granted over 700 ‘Orphan Designations’ and over 60 new drugs have received favorable response for Market Authorization.

Sales potential for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Generally ‘Orphan Drugs’ were not expected to be very high revenue earners. However, about 4 year ago in the year 2006, about 50 ‘Orphan Drugs’ were reported to had crossed a sales turnover of US $200 million. In 2006 the following ‘Orphan Drugs’ with expired market Exclusivity in the US, had assumed blockbuster status:

- Enbrel (Immunex): US $ 4.38 billion
- Rituxan (Genentech): US$ 3.97 billion
- Nupogen/Neulasta (Amgen): US $ 3.92 billion
- Epogen (Amgen): US $ 2.50 billion
- Avonex (Biogen): US $ 1.70 billion
- Betaseron (Novartis & Bayer): US $ 1.33 billion
- Intron A/ PEG-Intron (Schering): US $ 1.07 billion
- Kogenate (Bayer): US $ 1.07 billion
- Ceredase/Cerezyme (Genzyme): US $ 1.00 billion

Key growth drivers for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

In my view the following key factors will play critical role in driving the growth for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

- Market exclusivity options for a number of FDA recognized ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same drug
- Market exclusivity for seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU for each of the ‘Orphan Indications’
- Oncology could be a good segment to get such multiple ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same molecule

Glivec of Novartis obtained approval for around five new ‘Orphan Indications’, the key indications being Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) and Gastrointestinal Stomal Tumors. The product has already assumed a global blockbuster status with an estimated sales turnover of over US $4 billion by 2011.

Biotech companies are champions for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’, globally:

Since long, the Biotech companies are taking initiatives for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’. The path breaker in this respect was Genentech of the US, which developed two growth hormone molecules with names Protophin and Nutrophin, way back in 1985. Now, having realized the hidden potential of this segment more number of pharmaceutical players are entering into this arena. Thus, it is no wonder that 13 out of 19 blockbuster ‘Orphan Drugs’ were biologics in the year 2006.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such ‘Orphan Diseases’ are likely to be known in our country. Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures?
Currently, India is curving out a strong niche for itself in the space of biogenerics. Pfizer-Biocon deal will vindicate this point.

Moreover, with Pharmacogenomics keep gaining ground at a faster pace, as I mentioned earlier, there will be a shift towards personalized medicines, in not too distant future, in which case the blockbuster drugs as defined today, will be effective only for a smaller number of patients. If the Government of India visualizes this scenario sooner, and comes out with appropriate ODA for the country, domestic pharmaceutical industry of India, in general and biopharmaceuticals industry of the country, in particular, will be able emerge as a force to reckon with, in this important global space, much faster than what one would currently anticipate.

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.

Envisaging a paradigm shift in strategic marketing of pharmaceutical in India

Posted on by
Reply

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recommended, about three years ago, in mid-2007 that for sustainable business performance the research-based global pharmaceutical companies should move a part of their significant expenditure from marketing to research. They also recommended that the drug prices should be related to incremental efficacy that the products would provide.

The report titled ‘Pharma 2020: The Vision’ commented that the business model of the global pharmaceutical companies is “economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets.”

Undergoing a paradigm shift:

As we witness, the global pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a paradigm shift. More drugs are going off patent than what the innovator companies can replace with the new products. The research is undoubtedly failing to deliver.

At the same time, the business growth in the developed markets of the world has been declining over a period of time. The growth in the top two pharmaceutical markets of the world viz, USA and Japan had gone negative. IMS predicted in their recent ‘CEO Conclave’ in Mumbai that low growth trends in these markets will continue even beyond 2013.

In the same conclave IMS predicted that within ‘Pharmerging’ markets, China is expected to record highest CAGR growth of over 25%, followed by India and Turkey around 12-14% each. With such a scorching pace of growth China is expected to become third largest pharmaceutical market in the world in 2013 with India holding its 2008 ranking of no. 13.

Global pharmaceutical ‘Marketing Expenditure’ is increasing:

The publication titled “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States” co-authored by Marc-André Gagnon and Joel Lexchin estimated from the data collected from the industry and doctors during 2004 that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales turnover on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development. This was as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$ 235.4 billion in that year.

The researchers used 2004 as the comparison year, as this appears to be the latest year in which information was available from both IMS Health and CAM Group, the two international market research companies that provide the marketing and sales data together with those of consulting services. IMS obtains its data from pharmaceutical companies, while CAM obtains its data from the doctors. This study appeared in the January 3, 2008 issue of PLoS Medicine, an online journal published by the Public Library of Science.

The above findings though highlight that the US pharmaceutical industry is overall marketing-driven, also argues strongly in favor of a shift away from this direction.

Another publication named, the ‘Triangle Business Journal’ reported the findings from another study of ‘Cutting Edge Information’, a pharmaceutical research company based in Durham, North Carolina, USA. This survey reported, “the companies marketing the six blockbuster (turnover US $ 1 billion in the first year) drugs it studied spent an average of $238.5 million to market each product.”

The “Pharmabiz” of April 2, 2007 also reported, “The study of top 15 global pharma giants revealed that the marketing expenditure as percentage of total sales of these companies worked out to 30.5 as against the R&D expenses as a percentage of total sales of 15.1.”

Such high marketing expenditure is not sustainable in the long run – alternatives being explored:

As reported by IMS Health, in 2009 though the global pharmaceutical market recorded a turnover of US $ 837 billion with a growth rate of around 6.4% compared to 11.8% in 2001, the moot question remains, whether such type of marketing expenditure is sustainable during the era when the “patent cliff’ is pushing the global pharmaceutical industry to the brink.

This situation gets further aggravated when IMS Health reports, as the world’s 10 top selling prescription drugs go off patent, it will be difficult to replace them in terms of single-product value turnover. These brands are as follows:

- Lipitor, US$13.5 billion (Pfizer)

- Plavix, US$7.3 billion (sanofi-aventis)

- Nexium, US$7.2 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Seretide/Advair, US$7.1 billion (GlaxoSmithKline)

- Enbrel, US$5.3 billion (Amgen and Pfizer)

- Zyprexa, US$5 billion (Eli Lilly)

- Risperdal, US$4.9 billion (Johnson & Johnson)

- Seroquel, US$4.6 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Singulair, US$4.5 billion (Merck)

- Aranesp, US$4.4 billion (Amgen)

The business focus is now on the emerging markets like, India:

Thus the business focus of the global pharmaceutical majors are now on the key emerging markets, like India not only with their patented products, but more importantly by having a robust fast growing branded generic portfolio to more than offset the loss of revenue and profit from the blockbusters, as they go off patent.

Publicly expressed expectations of some Governments of the emerging markets:

Governments of some of these emerging markets expect local benefits out of the evolving growth opportunities of the global pharmaceutical companies from their respective countries. Various reports indicate that there could be following two key issues in these markets:

• Local manufacturing of products
• Pricing

Local manufacturing:

Out of these emerging markets, Indonesia has clearly spelt out its intention by specifying that the pharmaceutical companies marketing their products in Indonesia will need to establish local manufacturing facilities. The new rule is directed towards local job creation.

The Health Minister of Indonesia had commented, “If they want to get licenses (to sell their products) they have to invest here also, not just take advantage of the Indonesian market.” The Minister further added, “They can’t just operate like a retailer here, with an office that’s three meters by three, and make billions of rupiah. That’s not fair.” It has been reported that India and China may ultimately come out with similar requirements for their respective countries.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce has registered a strong protest in this matter with the President of Indonesia and has urged a reversal of this decision. However, the country appears to have taken a firm stand in this matter. This is evident when in response to the report that some global pharmaceutical companies have threatened withdrawal of their business from Indonesia because of this reason, the Health Minister retorted, “If they want to go away, go ahead.”

Pricing:

Anticipating such moves in the emerging markets, some global companies like, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and MSD have already started implemeting differential pricing strategies for their patented products in the emerging markets like India.

Some visionary global CEOs like, Andrew witty of GSK strongly believes that such differential pricing will enable more patients in the emerging markets to afford his company’s products. Consequently the increased sales volume will not only offset the sales value loss but will also create a substantial goodwill for the company in these markets, over a period of time.

Quoting Andrew Witty the ‘Wall Street Journal’ (WSJ) reported that in Philippines, GSK had reduced the price of 28 products by 30% to 50%. In other emerging markets of Asia including India, Malaysia and Thailand the company has reduced the prices of Cervarix, its cervical cancer vaccine, substantially.

India has also witnessed such differential pricing strategy by other innovator companies for their patented products in the country.

Prescribing four new key strategic changes in the new paradigm:

In the new paradigm, almost in tandem, four new key strategic changes, in my view, will gradually unfold in the Indian pharmaceutical market. These are as follows:

1. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treating the diseases.

2. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product will be the order of the day.

3. Over the counter (OTC) medicines, especially those originated from natural products to treat common and less serious illness, will curve out a sizable share of the market, as appropriate regulations are expected to be put in place adequately supported by AYUSH.

4. Most importantly, the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system, as already articulated just in the last month by Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, which will usher in the following changes:

- Doctors will no longer be the sole decision makers for prescribing drugs to the patients and the way they will treat the common diseases. Ministry of Health/ Healthcare providers/ Medical insurance companies will start playing a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines.

- For a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell, tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable.

- Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will gradually play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.

- This could well mean lesser role of the Medical Representatives in the demand generation process for the pharmaceutical products, which could possibly have a positive impact on the cost of marketing and sales promotion, incurred by the respective pharmaceutical companies.

Conclusion:

With all these changes within the Indian pharmaceutical industry, it may not be easy for the local players to adapt to the new paradigm sooner and compete with the global players on equal footing, even in the branded generic space. In my view, those Indian Pharmaceutical companies, who are already global players in their own right and relatively well versed with the nuances of this new ball game, will have a significant competitive edge over other domestic players. The global-local companies, in my view, will offer a tough competition to the local-global players, especially, in the branded generic space and at the same time will be able to bring down their marketing expenses significantly.

So far as other domestic players are concerned, the fast changing environment could throw a new challenge to many of them, accelerating the consolidation process within the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

We all should be well aware, just as today’s pharmaceutical business dynamics in India are not replica of what these were in the yesteryears, tomorrow’s pharmaceutical business dynamics of the country will not be a replica of what these are today.

By Tapan Ray

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