Pharma & Healthcare: Where The Healers Turn Looters?

Posted on November 24, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Two news reports of the last week, though no longer shocking, made me think exactly the same way as the headline of this article epitomizes.

These reports are not just two isolated instances, but an integral part of a similar chain of events that I partly addressed in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Much Beyond Profit Making?” of November 10, 2014.

With the fist clenching media reports of just the last week, I shall try to dwell upon that in absence of good governance how two of the greatest healers and the medical care givers in the arena of healthcare – the doctors and the hospitals, are being increasingly perceived by the common citizens as nothing less than looters.

The doctors:

A November 21, 2014 report highlights that the Medical Council of India (MCI) has summoned over three hundred doctors from various parts of India, based on an anonymous complaint, for taking lakhs of rupees as bribes from an Ahmedabad based pharmaceutical company. All those 300 doctors have been told to bring copies of their Income Tax returns and bank statements.

Just a year ago, in September 2013, the Chief Vigilance Commissioner reportedly received a letter alleging that doctors were taking bribes from Pharma companies. The complaint was forwarded to the Health ministry. The MCI took over the case in December 2013 and formed a subcommittee to investigate the doctors.

The complaint details that the Ahmedabad-based pharma company has been paying to the doctors not just huge cash, but also gifting them cars and flats, besides sponsoring foreign trips for the family.

In return, the involved doctors are allegedly prescribing that Ahmedabad based pharma company’s products that are priced 15 to 30 percent higher than those of well-established other pharma players.

In addition, according to reports, the doctors would also air on the Television sets placed at their respective clinics, advertisements of the pharma company products against hefty cash or equivalent in kind.

Although, the allegations of unholy nexus between pharma players and the doctors are continuity of a good old saga, the risk taking incentives that it provides to the wrong doers are very significant. The anonymous letter alleged that the concerned pharma company’s profit zoomed from zero to Rs. 400 Crore in a period of just 5 years.

According to available reports, the MCI has already questioned 166 doctors, out of which 7 are senior doctors from Maharashtra, including 3 physicians from Mumbai.

The hospital:

Another report on the subject that appeared yesterday is related to overcharging for an oncology medicine of Novartis – Sandostatin LAR, over the last nine months by the well-known Tata Memorial Hospital of Mumbai.

According to the report, even when Novartis revised the price of Sandostatin LAR from Rs. 65,499 for a 20mg vial to Rs 32,000 during Oct-Dec 2013 and the chemists in the hospital’s vicinity were selling the same vial for Rs 32,000, Tata Memorial continued to sell it at Rs 48,296.

The report also states that patients could have saved much more, if the hospital had prescribed an Octreotide generic of the same strength, Octride Depot 20mg by Sun Pharma with an MRP of Rs 17,800 is sold at Tata Memorial for Rs 12,157, instead of Sandostatin LAR 20mg.

However, the newspaper claims, “DNA was the first to report about the price disparity at the hospital on Nov 5. Tata Memorial Hospital has decided to reimburse cancer patients who were overcharged for a Novartis-branded oncology medicine over the last nine months.”

Interestingly, we get to know only about a few of such instances, only when these are reported either anonymously or by some employees or through rare impartial investigative journalism of international standard.

Treatment of dreaded diseases like Cancer also not spared:

The above hospital case assumes immense importance, as it is related to a dreaded disease and an expensive cancer drug. In real every day life, many such cases of various hues and colors are taking place in India incognito, at the cost of patients.

A scary scenario:

According to the ‘Fact-Sheet 2014′ of the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer cases would rise from 14 million in 2012 to 22 million within the next two decades. It is, therefore, no wonder that cancers figured among the leading causes of over 8.2 million deaths in 2012, worldwide.

A reflection of this scary scenario can also be visualized while analyzing the growth trend of various therapy segments of the global pharmaceutical market.

A recent report of ‘Evaluate Pharma (EP)’ has estimated that the worldwide sales of prescription drugs would reach US$ 1,017 Bn. by 2020 with a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2020.

Interestingly, oncology is set to record the highest sales growth among the major therapy categories with a CAGR of 11.2 percent during this period, accounting for US$ 153.4 Bn. of the global pharmaceutical sales.

High incidence of cancer in India:

A major report published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’ states that in India, around 1 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year, which is estimated to reach 1.7 million in 2035.

The report also highlights, though deaths from cancer are currently 600,000 -700,000 annually, it is expected to increase to around 1.2 million during this period.

The Lancet Oncology study showed, while incidence of cancer in the Indian population is only about a quarter of that in the United States or Europe, mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease are much higher.

Experts do indicate that one of the main barriers of cancer care is its high treatment cost that is out of reach for millions of Indians.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for over 1 in 5 of all deaths from cancer in women, while 40 percent of cancer cases in the country are attributable to tobacco.

Cancer drug price – a global issue to address:

As the targeted therapies have significantly increased their share of global oncology sales, from 11 percent a decade ago to 46 percent last year, increasingly, both the Governments and the payers, almost all over the world, have started feeling quite uncomfortable with the rapidly ascending drug price trend.

In the top cancer markets of the world, such as, the United States and Europe, both the respective governments and also the private insurers have now started playing hardball with the cancer drugs manufacturers.

There are several instances in the developed markets, where the stakeholders, such as, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are expressing their concerns about manufacturers’ charging astronomical prices, even for small improvements in the survival time.

Following examples would give an idea of global sensitivity in this area:

After rejecting Roche’s breast cancer drug Kadcyla as too expensive, NICE reportedly articulated in its statement: “A breast cancer treatment that can cost more than US$151,000 per patient is not effective enough to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.”

In October 2012, three doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced in the New York Times that their hospital wouldn’t be using Zaltrap. These oncologists did not consider the drug worth its price. They questioned, why prescribe the far more expensive Zaltrap? Almost immediately thereafter, coming under intense stakeholder pressure Sanofi reportedly announced 50 percent off on Zaltrap price.

Similarly, ASCO in the United States has reportedly launched an initiative to rate cancer drugs not just on their efficacy and side effects, but prices as well.

Developments in India:

India has already demonstrated its initial concern on this critical issue by granting Compulsory License (CL) to the local player Natco to formulate the generic version of Bayer’s kidney cancer drug Nexavar and make it available to the patients at a fraction of the originator’s price. As rumors are doing the rounds, probably some more patented cancer drugs would come under Government scrutiny to achieve the same end goal.

I indicated in my earlier blog post that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India by its notification dated July 10, 2014 has decided to bring, among others, some anticancer drugs too, not featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), under price control. These prices have already in force.

Not too long ago, the Indian government reportedly contemplated to allow production of cheaper generic versions of breast cancer drug Herceptin in India. Roche – the originator of the drug ultimately surrendered its patent rights in 2013, apprehending that it would lose a legal contest in Indian courts, according to media reports.

Biocon and Mylan thereafter came out with biosimilar version of Herceptin in the country with around 40 percent lesser price.Herceptin,

Hence, affordable pricing of cancer drugs would continue to remain a key pressure point, as it just happened yet again.

The government to intervene again:

According to a media report of the last week, the new government in India is planning to control prices of anti-cancer drugs to address this critical issue.

As the current National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) does not include many important anti-cancer medication, Tata Memorial Centre of Mumbai has recommended to the government that oncology drugs, such as Trastuzumab, Erlotinib, Irinotecan, Lenalidomide, Capecitabine, All Trans Retinoic Acid (ATRA), Bendamustine, Rituximab, Temozolomide (TMZ), Zoledronic acid, Megestrol acetate and Letrozole, should be added to the NLEM.

As a first step towards this direction the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has invited comments on the same from the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders to bring these drugs under price control.

Quoting NPPA the report states, “the recommendations are based on factors such as the ability of the drug to improve the overall survival chances of the patient. The other factors include higher priority to drugs that have the potential to cure a fraction of patients versus those that have been proven to only prolong lives; the number of patients potentially impacted in India based on data from population based cancer registries of the National Cancer Registry Program; the non-availability of alternative medications of the same or other pharmacological class that can act as a reasonable ‘substitute’; and price of the drug to patients and the differential in price between various brands.”

Although this is a welcome move to most of the patients, the pharma industry would certainly not be happy with this development, because of very obvious reasons and is expected to strongly oppose this initiative of the government. Let us wait and watch how this scenario unfolds further.

Conclusion:

In pursuit of the Eldorado to generate more and more wealth, shorn of least concerns for majority of patients, quite a few companies are not sparing even the dreaded diseases, such as cancer, pushing many patients to abject poverty, if not untimely death.

Increasingly, many healthcare players across the world are reportedly being forced to pay heavily for ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments. Unfortunately, no such steps are being taken in India, not just yet.

At least on paper, for errant doctors and hospitals there is MCI to take prompt remedial measures. For implementation of Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) there is NPPA, though effectiveness of these two seemingly powerful bodies are far from the expectations of the stakeholders, occasional reported jingoism notwithstanding.

Currently in India, there are no legally binding ‘codes of pharma marketing practices’ in place. Even the Department of Pharmaceutical does not seem to have any legal jurisdiction for taking penal action against the errant pharma players for marketing malpractices or misdemeanor.

In this chaotic scenario, is it not quite challenging to fathom how would the government possibly discourage any healthcare or pharma player from turning looter instead of playing the expected role of a healer, ensuring beyond doubt that there is no wolf in sheep’s clothing?

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.

Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Much Beyond Profit Making?

Posted on November 10, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), at a briefing to discuss the Ebola outbreak in West Africa at the UN Foundation in Washington on September 3, 2014 said:

“Big Pharma’s greed for profits, not lack of funding, delaying Ebola treatment development.”

Highlighting that the disease has already taken lives of 4,951 people in West Africa, Dr. Chan castigated the pharmaceutical industry for failing to develop an effective treatment for the deadly virus Ebola since 1976. “Though the Ebola crisis has become the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times, a profit-driven industry does not invest in products for markets that cannot pay”, Dr. Chan added.

That said, the Big Pharma has now initiated some efforts in this area, as the disease currently poses a significant threat to non-African countries, including America.

The sentiment reverberates:

Echoing similar sentiment, an article published in the BBC News on November 7, 2014 reiterated:

“Big pharma companies are in the business to make money, so will generally develop those drugs that offer the greatest potential for profit. This means a number of important drugs are neglected – the current Ebola crisis being a case in point.”

The profit oriented approach isn’t restricted just to the diseases of Africa:

The above article also points out that, besides diseases of the developing world, the Big Pharma has been slow to develop newer and multi-drug resistant antibiotics, as well.

This is mainly because, it is lot more difficult for the pharma companies to make huge quantum of profit from discovery of newer antibiotics for acute infections having limited use for around 7 to 10 days, as compared to the medicines for chronic illnesses that people will have to necessarily take every day, for life.

It appears today that the ongoing public opinion and pressure are possibly not adequate enough to trigger even a slightest change in the fetish for profit-making incentives of the Big Pharma companies.

Despite high profitability, the fetish for even more profit continues:

The pharma industry that basically exists to help saving lives of patients of all types, status and color in various ways, now seems to focus mostly on generation of more and more profit than ever before.

- The following table would vindicate the point of profitability of the industry:

Highest and Lowest Profit Margins of 5 key Industrial Sectors, 2013 (Profit Margin in %)

No.	Sectors	Highest	Lowest
1.	Pharmaceuticals	42	10
2.	Banks	29	5
3.	Carmakers	10	3
4.	Oil & Gas	24	2
5.	Media	18	6

NB: Highest and lowest margins achieved by individual company (Source: Forbes, BBC News)

To generate mind boggling profits, many of the Big Pharma constituents have reportedly resorted to various types of gross misconduct and malpractices too, the Chinese saga being the tip of the iceberg.

- The following are some recent examples to help fathom the enormity of the problem:

In September 2014, GlaxoSmithKline was reportedly fined US $490m by China for bribery.

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.

In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Many more of such instances are regularly being reported by the international media, unabated.

More profit through high drug pricing – The key argument in favor:

The Big Pharma argues that high drug pricing is absolutely necessary to generate a kind of profit, that is essential to fund heavy investments for drug innovation to meet the unmet needs of patients. Moreover, only 3 out of 10 drugs launched are profitable, on an average.

This argument really goes over the top. It does not hold much water either, as the Big Pharma reportedly spends more on the process of drug marketing than on innovation (R&D) of new drugs.

The following table would paint a different picture altogether, marketing expenditure being far more than the R&D costs:

R&D and Marketing Spend of World’s largest Pharmaceutical Companies

Company	Total Revenue (US$ Bn.)	R&D Spend (US$ Bn.)	Marketing Spend (US$ Bn.)	Profit (US$ Bn.)	Profit Margin (%)
J & J (US)	71.3	8.2	17.5	13.8	19
Novartis (Swiss)	58.8	9.9	14.6	9.2	16
Pfizer (US)	51.6	6.6	11.4	22.0	43
Roche (Swiss)	50.3	9.3	9.0	12.0	24
Sanofi (France)	44.4	6.3	9.1	8.5	11
Merck (US)	44.0	7.5	9.5	4.4	10
GSK (UK)	41.4	5.3	9.9	8.5	21
AstraZeneca(UK)	25.7	4.3	7.3	2.6	10
Eli Lilly (US)	23.1	5.5	5.7	4.7	20
AbbVie (US)	18.8	2.9	4.3	4.1	22

(Source: GlobalData, BBC News)

Thus, it is difficult to fathom why are numbers of drugs, such as, Sovaldi and others costing as much as US $ 84,000 and above for a treatment course, when the cost of manufacturing is no more than an insignificant fraction of that treatment cost?

Considering all these and looking at the published profit and loss accounts of various pharma companies, it appears that, the line between ‘making reasonable profit’ and ‘profiteering’ is getting increasingly blurred in the pharma world.

Why is the marketing cost so high?

Since about the last decade and half, despite reasonably high expenditure on R&D there does not seem to have been many reports on breakthrough innovations. According to an expert of the World Health Organization (WHO), “of the 20 or 30 new drugs brought to the market each year, typically 3 are genuinely new, with the rest offering only marginal benefits.”

In a situation like this, when the challenge mostly is of generating targeted revenues with the new products of ‘me-too values’ rather than with those having intrinsic ‘unmet values’, marketing costs to generate doctors’ prescription would obviously escalate disproportionately. Even the process followed to generate these prescriptions, often cross the red line of regulatory, ethics and compliance standards, as have been cited above.

The following questions come up consequently:

- Are these exorbitant avoidable marketing expenditures adding any tangible or intangible values to the ultimate consumers – the patients?

- If not, why burden the patients with these unnecessary costs?

India is no different against similar parameters:

Back home in India, the deep anguish of the stakeholders over similar issues is now being increasingly reverberated with every passing day, as it were. It has also drawn the attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament.

The quality of the pharmaceutical sales and marketing process in India has touched a new low and continues to go south, causing suffering to a large number of patients. Well documented unethical drug promotion is increasingly becoming an emerging threat to the society.

Even today, the Ministry of Health and the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India provide few checks and balances on unethical drug promotion in India and prefer to keep the eyes meant for vigilance, closely shut.

Despite deplorable inaction of the government on the subject and frequent reporting by Indian media, the national debate on this issue is yet to attain a critical mass. A related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing, hopefully in the near future. Its judicial verdict is expected to usher in a breath of fresh air around a rather stifling environment for healthcare in India.

I deliberated on a similar issue in one of my earlier blog posts of September 1, 2014, titled, “Pharma And Healthcare: Mounting Trust deficit In Post Halcyon Days”

Conclusion:

While it is well-acknowledged that pharma industry has contributed immensely for the development of a large number of life saving new drugs to save precious lives all over the globe, none can also deny that for such efforts the companies concerned have not been hugely profited either…and, as we have been witnessing, not necessarily through legitimate means, always.

That said, in the backdrop of all the above examples, the core issue that emerges today as raised by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO), is the growing inherent conflict between predominantly the profit driven business goals of the pharma players and the public health interest of a nation.

Considering a number of recent serious public outbursts of the global thought leaders and also from the international media on the ‘profit dominating goals’ of the pharma industry, in general, the following questions need to be addressed with all seriousness:

- Is there a need to define afresh the core purpose of pharmaceutical business for all?

- Does the core purpose go much beyond profit making?

- If so, how would the industry plan to engage the stakeholders for its credible public demonstration?

Meanwhile, taking a serious note of it and learning from the past examples, India should initiate experts’ debate on the subject soon, to effectively resolve the conflict of two different mindsets, not resting on the same page in many ways.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Awaiting ‘The Moment of Truth’ on ‘Working of Patents’ in India

Posted on November 3, 2014 by Tapan Ray

By a letter dated October 21, 2014 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of India, the domestic pharma major Cipla has sought for the revocation of five patents of Novartis AG’s respiratory drug Indacaterol (Onbrez) in India, under Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Launch of a generic equivalent:

Cipla also announced its decision to launch shortly a generic equivalent of Indacaterol with the brand name Unibrez Rotacaps to satisfy the unfulfilled requirement of the new drug in India.

The Maximum Retail Price for a strip of 10 capsules of Unibrez Rotacaps 150 mcg would cost Rs.130.00 to patients against the equivalent strength of Onbrez of Novartis costing Rs.677.00, which is 420 percent more expensive than the price at which Cipla would sell this drug.

What do the Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act say?

- Section 66 of the Indian Patents Act:

“66. Revocation of patent in public interest: Where the Central Government is of the opinion that a patent or the mode in which it is exercised is mischievous to the State of generally prejudicial to the public, if any, after giving the patentee an opportunity to be heard, make a declaration to that effect in the Official Gazette and thereupon the patent shall be deemed to be revoked.”

- Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act:

“92. Special provision for compulsory licenses: (1) If the Central Government is satisfied, in respect of any patent in force in circumstances of national emergency or in circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non- commercial use, that it is necessary that compulsory licenses should be granted at any time after the sealing thereof to work the invention, it may make a declaration to that effect, by notification in the Official Gazette, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say –

(i) The Controller shall on application made at any time after the notification by any person interested, grant to the applicant a license under the patent on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit;

(ii) In settling the terms and conditions of a license granted under this section, the Controller shall endeavor to secure that the articles manufactured under the patent shall be available to the public at the lowest prices consistent with the patentees deriving a reasonable advantage from their patent rights.

(2) The provisions of sections 83, 87, 88, 89 and 90 shall apply in relation to the grant of licenses under this section as they apply in relation to the grant of licenses under section 84.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), where the Controller is satisfied on consideration of the application referred to in clause (i) of sub- section (1) that it is necessary in –

(i) A circumstance of national emergency; or

(ii) A circumstance of extreme urgency; or

(iii) A case of public non- commercial use, which may arise or is required, as the case may be, including public health crises, relating to Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome, Human Immuno Deficiency Virus, tuberculosis, malaria or other epidemics, he shall not apply any procedure specified in section 87 in relation to that application for grant of license under this section:

Provided that the Controller shall, as soon as may be practicable, inform the patentee of the patent relating to the application for such non-application of section 87.”

Two key reasons:

Anchored on the above two sections of the Indian Patents Act, the two key reasons cited by Cipla for revocation of five patents granted to Indacaterol of Novartis AG are, very briefly, as follows:

Lack of inventive steps and ‘evergreening’ of patents:

The exclusivity given to five patents of Indacaterol is contrary to law due to lack of inventive step, being obvious inventions. Novartis allegedly has indulged in ‘evergreening’ with a number of patents to extend monopoly of the drug much beyond the term of the first patent. Indian law expressly bars ‘evergreening’ as it impedes drug access to a large majority of the patients.

Lack of working of the patents:

Cipla also claimed lack of “working” of those patents in the country, as a mere 0.03 percent of the drug requirement is currently being fulfilled in India. This leaves the percentage of inadequacy in the requirement of the drug per year at a staggering number of around 99.97 percent.

With supporting details, Cipla has stated in its letter that Indacaterol under the brand name Onbrez is imported by Novartis through its licensee Lupin Pharma only. It further pointed out that the Indian law requires all patents to be “worked” within the territory of India.

While adequate quantity of imports may qualify as working, the present case is one in which the patents in question have not been worked through imports of adequate quantity of the drug. Thus reasonable requirements of the public have not been fulfilled, at all.

Abysmally low drug access to Indian patients:

According to Cipla, when there has been a necessity for the availability of Indacaterol to a much larger number of patients afflicted by COPD, that has assumed magnitude of an epidemic, just a miniscule of 0.03 percent of the total drug requirement is currently being met in the country. In 2013, the import of Indacaterol, as reportedly declared in Form 27 by Novartis to the Patent office, was just 53,844 units, which could meet this drug requirement at best of only 4,500 out of 15 million patients, annually.

Despite accepted drug benefits, the doctors are unable to adequately prescribe Indacaterol in India, due to low quantity of the drug import for the public.

Thus, while announcing the launch of cheaper generic equivalents of the drug, Cipla emphasized that its Unibrez Rotacaps would fulfill the requirements of the public, meet public health interest and at the same time increase access to this medicine, with an affordable alternative, for a large number of patients.

Increasing incidence of COPD in India:

In its application to the DIPP, Cipla underscored that Indacaterol is one of the preferred medications to treat widely prevalent Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that has reached the magnitude of an epidemic in India with about 15 million Indians afflicted with the ailment.

COPD is now among the top ten causes of disease burden in India. According to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the overall prevalence rates of COPD in India are 5.0 and 3.2 percent respectively in men and women of and over 35 years of age. The World Health Organization (WHO) also reported that COPD is the cause of death of more people than HIV-AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis all put together in the South East Asian Region.

Cipla quoted an Indian Study on “Epidemiology of Asthma, Respiratory Symptoms and Chronic Bronchitis in Adults (INSEARCH)”, which estimated that about 7 percent of deaths annually are a result of Chronic Respiratory Diseases in India.

Importance of Indacaterol in COPD treatment:

Cipla reiterated that Indacaterol is the preferred drug over other beta adrenoceptor agonists, as it has to be consumed only once a day. Moreover, it has a higher potency and prolonged effect as compared to other beta adrenoceptor agonists.

Strong arguments make the case interesting:

Though appropriate legal authorities would take a final call on the subject, prima facie, Cipla seems to have a strong case resting on the pillars of Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Since, Cipla has already gone ahead and announced the launch of cheaper generic equivalent of Indacaterol in India, it gives a sense about the company’s confidence in its argument against five valid patents of Novartis on this drug.

On the other hand, one may also justifiably say that Cipla should have waited for the final verdict of the court of law on the validity of five Indacaterol patents in India, before deciding to actually launch a generic version of the patented drug.

It is worth noting that in 2013, Novartis lost a legal battle related to patent grant for its anti-leukemia drug Glivec in the Supreme Court of India. The case lasted over seven years in various courts of law. Interestingly, Cipla had followed similar course of action in the Glivec case too, and had won the case decisively.

‘Form 27’ and the Indian Patent office (IPO):

At this stage it is worth noting, a ‘Public Notice’ dated December 24, 2009 was issued by the Controller General of Patents, Design & Trade Marks, directing all ‘Patentees and Licensees’ to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rule 2003.

The notice also drew attention to penalty provisions in the Patents Act, in case of non-submission of the aforesaid information.

The information sought by the IPO in ‘Form 27’ can be summarized as follows:

A. The reasons for not working and steps being taken for ‘working of the invention’ to be provided by the patentee.

B. In case of establishing ‘working of a patent’, the following yearly information needs to be provided:

The quantity and value of the invention worked; which includes both local manufacturing and importation.
The details to be provided, if any licenses and/or sub-licenses have been granted for the products during the year.
A statement as to whether the public requirements have been met partly/adequately to the fullest extent at a reasonable price.

The ‘Public Notice’ also indicated that:

• A fine of up to (US$ 25,000 may be levied for not submitting or refusing to submit the required information by the IPO.

• And providing false information is a punishable offence attracting imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine.

The important point to ponder now is, if Cipla’s allegation is correct, what has been the IPO doing with the ‘Form 27’ information to uphold the spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005, thus far?

Conclusion:

For various reasons, it would now be interesting to follow, how does the IPO deal with this case right from here. In any case, information provided through ‘Form 27’ cannot remain a secret. ‘The Right to Information Act (RTI)’ will help ferret more such details out in the open.

As the ‘Moment of Truth’ unfolds in this case, one would be quite curious to fathom how the strong voices against ‘non-working of patents’ and ‘evergreening’ drive home their arguments before the court of justice.

On the other hand, the global innovator companies, their highly paid lobby groups and the USTR are expected to exert tremendous pressure on the Indian Government to protect the global pharma business interests in India, come what may. All these would indeed create a potboiler, as expected by many.

In this complex scenario, striking a right balance between rewarding genuine innovation, on the one hand, and help improving access to affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population in the country, on the other, would not be an enviable task for the Indian Government.

As the juggernaut of conflicting interest moves on, many would keenly await for a glimpse of ‘the moment of truth’ based on the judicial interpretation of ‘evergreening’ and ‘working of patents’, for this case in particular.

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.

Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?

Posted on October 20, 2014 by Tapan Ray

I discussed in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?” of October 6, 2014 that on April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘priority watch list country’.

Special 301 Report and OCR – A brief Background:

According to the Office of USTR, Section 182 of the US Trade Act requires USTR to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of IPR or deny fair and equitable market access to US persons who rely on Intellectual Property (IP) protection. The provisions of Section 182 are commonly referred to as the “Special 301” provisions of the US Trade Act.

Those countries that have the ‘most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on relevant US products’ are to be identified as Priority Foreign Countries. In addition, USTR has created a “Priority Watch List” and a “Watch List” under Special 301 provisions. Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.

In the 2014 Special 301 Report, USTR placed India on the Priority Watch List and noted that it would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern.

An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on IPR issues of concern and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy such issues.

For the purpose of the OCR of India, USTR had requested written submissions from the public concerning information, views, acts, policies, or practices relevant to evaluating the Government of India’s engagement on IPR issues of concern, in particular those identified in the 2014 Special 301 Report.

The Deadlines for written submissions were as follows:

Friday, October 31, 2014 - Deadline for the public, except foreign governments, to submit written comments.

Friday, November 7, 2014 - Deadline for foreign governments to submit written comments.

India’s earlier response to 2014 Special 301 Report:

On this report, India had responded earlier by saying that the ‘Special 301’ process is nothing but unilateral measures taken by the US to create pressure on countries to increase IPR protection beyond the TRIPS agreement. The Government of India has always maintained that its IPR regime is fully compliant with all international laws.

The issue was raised during PM’s US visit:

According to media reports, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his visit to America last month, had faced power packed protests against the drug patent regime in India from both the US drug industry and also the federal government.

The Indo-US joint statement addresses remedial measures:

In view of this concern, Indo-US high-level working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries. TPF has five focus groups: Agriculture, Investment, Innovation and Creativity, Services, and Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers.

The recent joint statement issued after the talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama captures the essence of it as follows:

“Agreeing on the need to foster innovation in a manner that promotes economic growth and job creation, the leaders committed to establish an annual high-level Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group with appropriate decision-making and technical-level meetings as part of the TPF.”

Unilateral measures resurface within days after PM’s return from the US:

Almost immediately after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s return from the US, USTR ‘s fresh offensive with OCR against India’s IP regime, could have an adverse impact on the proposed bilateral dialogue with Washington on this issue.

However, dismissing this unilateral action of America, the Union Commerce Ministry, has reiterated the country’s stand, yet again, as follows:

“As far as we are concerned, all our laws and rules are compliant with our commitments at WTO. A country can’t judge India’s policies using its own yardsticks when there is a multilateral agreement.”

As many would know that several times in the past, India has unambiguously articulated, it may explore the available option of approaching the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the unilateral moves and actions by the US on IPR related issues, as IPR policies require to be discussed in the multilateral forum, such as WTO.

A fresh hurdle in the normalization process:

Many see the latest move of USTR with OCR as a fresh hurdle in the normalization process of a frosty trade and economic relationship between the two countries. More so, when it comes almost immediately after a clear agreement inked between Prime Minister Modi and President Obama in favor of a bilateral engagement on IPR related policies and issues. Let me hasten to add, USTR has now clarified, “The OCR will not revisit India’s designation on the 2014 Priority Watch List.”

What does US want?

The initiatives taken by the USTR, no doubt, are in conformance to the US law, as it requires to identify and prepare a list of trade barriers in the countries with whom the US has trade relations, and with a clear focus on IPR related issues.

Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India, in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too.

It is pretty clear now that to resolve all IP related bilateral issues, the United States wants the Indian Patents Act to be amended as an exact replica of what the American lawmakers have enacted in their country, including evergreening of patents and no compulsory licensing unless there is a national disaster or emergency. They require it, irrespective of whatever happens as a result of lack of access to these new drugs for a vast majority of Indian patients.

Thus, it is understandable, why the Indian government is not surrendering to persistent American bullying.

A series of decisions taken by the Union government of India on both patents and drug pricing is a demonstration of its sincere endeavor to increase access to drugs, as less than 15 percent of 1.2 billion people of the country are currently covered by some sort of health insurance.

Global healthcare NGOs strongly reacted:

The Doctors Without Borders’ (MSF) Access Campaign articulated, “India’s production of affordable medicines is a vital life-line for MSF’s medical humanitarian operations and millions of people in the developing countries.”

It further added, “India’s patent law and practices are favorable to public health, were put in place through a democratic legislative process, and are in line with international trade and intellectual property rules… Every country has the right to set policies that balance private business interests with public health needs.”

MSF reportedly warned Prime Minister Modi that US officials and Big Pharma would continue to try to lobby and pressurize him over India’s current patent regime and urged him, “Don’t back down on drug patents”.

“The world can’t afford to see India’s pharmacy shut down by US commercial interests,” MSF reiterated.

Under US bullying, is India developing cold feet?

In the midst of all these, an international media reported:

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi got an earful from both constituents and the US drug industry about India’s approach to drug patents during his first visit to the US last month. Three weeks later, there is evidence the government will take a considered approach to the contested issue.”

Quoting an Indian media report, the above international publication elaborated, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of India, has delayed a decision on whether to grant a Compulsory License (CL) for Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS) leukemia drug Sprycel. DIPP has sent a letter to the Health Ministry, questioning its rationale for saying there was a “national emergency” when chronic myeloid leukemia affects only 0.001% of the population. The letter asked how much the government is spending on the drug, and pointed out that there is no indication of a growing trend in the disease.

This Indian report commented, if the DIPP had agreed to issue a CL for Sprycel on the recommendation of the Union Ministry of Health, it would have ‘cheered’ the public health activists, but would have adversely impacted Indo-US relations that the Indian Prime Minister wants to avoid for business interests.

A Superficial and baseless interpretation:

In my view, the above comments of the Indian media, which was quoted by the international publications, may be construed as not just superficial, but baseless as well.

This is because, DIPP has become cautious on the CL issue not just now, but at least over a couple years from now (please read: Health Min’s compulsory license proposal hits DIPP hurdle, DIPP seeks details on 3 cancer drugs for compulsory licensing).

This is also not the first time that DIPP has sought clarification from the Ministry of Health on this subject.

Hence, in my view, this particular issue is being unnecessarily sensationalized, which has got nothing to do with hard facts and far from being related to the PM’s visit to America.

Conclusion:

The Indian Parliament amended the Patent Act in 2005, keeping the interest of public health right at the center. The Act provides adequate safeguards, including checks on evergreening of patents and broader framework for CL. All these conform to the Doha Declaration, which categorically states “TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent WTO members from taking measures to protect public health”.

For similar reasons, the Indian Act does not provide for ‘evergreening’ of patents. The Supreme Court judgment on Glivec is a case in point. If the Indian patent regime is weak and not TRIPS-compliant, the aggrieved country should approach the dispute settlement body of the WTO for necessary action. Thus, it is intriguing if the US, which took India to WTO over the latter’s solar power policy, is not doing the same for pharma IP. Is it really sure that the allegation that ‘the Indian Patent Act is non-TRIPS compliant’ is a robust one?

There is no denying that innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation and needs to be rewarded and protected. However, there is an equally important need to strike the right balance between patent regimes and safeguarding public health interest. In that sense, the Indian Patents Act occupies a position of strength, not weakness.

Considering all these, unilateral American measures against India for amendment of the country’s Patents Act in sync with theirs, ultimately would prove to be foolhardy.

The high-level working group on IP constituted as a part of the bilateral Trade Policy Forum (TPF), would be the right platform to sort out glitches in this arena, keeping Indian patients’ health interests at the center, and at the same time without jeopardizing justifiable business interests of the innovator companies.

Otherwise in all probability, India would continue to hold its justifiable ground on IPR steadfastly, remaining unfazed under pressures and provocations of any kind.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does Drug Pricing Freedom Benefit Patients in A Free-Market Economy?

Posted on October 13, 2014 by Tapan Ray

A 2010 USFDA update titled ‘Generic Competition and Drug Prices’ highlighted that generic competition is intimately associated with lower drug prices, and the entry of the second generic competitor is associated with the largest price reduction.

The agency found that on an average, the first generic competitor prices its product only slightly lower than the brand-name manufacturer. However, the appearance of a second generic manufacturer reduces the average generic price to nearly half the brand name price. As additional generic manufacturers market the product, the prices continue to fall, but more slowly. For products that attract a large number of generic manufacturers, the average generic price falls to 20 percent of the branded price or even lower.

USFDA came to this conclusion based on an analysis of IMS retail sales data for single-ingredient brand name and generic drug products sold in the United States from 1999 through 2004.

Thus, the scope of any significant price increase, especially under cutthroat competition in the generic space of the US, used to be considered almost impractical until recently.

The ‘Myth’ busted:

Just over four years down the line, a ‘Press Release’ of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shattered this myth, when on October 2, 2014, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Senator Bernard Sanders, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent letters to 14 drug manufacturers, which reportedly include India’s Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Zydus Cadila, requesting for detail information about the escalating prices for generic drugs that they have started charging.

The letters:

The complete letters written to each of the 14 drug manufactures are linked below:

Actavis plc

Apotex Corp.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories

Endo International plc

Global Pharmaceuticals

Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Lannett Company, Inc.

Marathon Pharmaceuticals, LLC

Mylan Inc.

PAR Pharmaceuticals Companies Inc.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp.

Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.

Summary findings of apparently ‘obscene’ price hike:

The following statements of Rep. Cummings and Senator Sanders capture the core sentiment of the probe:

“When you see how much the prices of these drugs have increased just over the past year, it’s staggering, and we want to know why,” Cummings said.

“Generic drugs were meant to help make medications affordable for the millions of Americans who rely on prescriptions to manage their health needs. We’ve got to get to the bottom of these enormous price increases,” Sanders added.

In the above letters, Cummings and Sanders quoted data from the Healthcare Supply Chain Association on recent purchases of 10 generic drugs by group purchasing organizations over the past two years. For example:

Albuterol Sulfate used to treat asthma and other lung conditions, increased 4,014 percent for a 100’s bottle of 2 mg tablets.

Doxycycline Hyclate, an antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections, increased 8,281 percent for a 500’s bottle of 100 mg tablets.

Glycopyrrolate, used to prevent irregular heartbeats during surgery, increased 2,728 percent for a box of 10 of 0.2 mg/mL, 20 mL vials.

Click here for a table of price increases for the ten drugs examined.

The information sought by lawmakers:

The Lawmakers requested the companies to provide detail relevant information from 2012 to the present, including:

Total gross revenues from sales of the drugs,
Prices paid for the drugs,
Factors that contributed to decisions to increase prices,
The identity of company officials responsible for setting drug prices.

The trigger factor:

This probe by the US lawmakers was triggered by the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) 2013 survey of drug prices. Subsequently in 2014, the NCPA had requested the US Senate to investigate into staggering increases of 390 – 8200 percent in the procurement prices of ten generic drugs, in just one year.

Immediate financial impact:

Reacting to this news, in the early afternoon on October 8, 2014, the scrip of Sun Pharma reportedly declined by 3.91 percent to Rs 804.10 and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories slipped by 3.29 percent to Rs 2,996.90 while Cadila Healthcare was down by 1.84 percent to Rs 1,313.85 on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE).

It is too early to speculate on the ultimate outcome of this probe. However, it may not be prudent to rule out the possibility of a far-reaching consequence, besides levying of commensurate penalties to the respective drug manufacturers.

India too acted upon, but withdrew hastily:

For products falling outside Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO), which account for around 82 percent of the total Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) and are eligible for free pricing, India has a similar, yet slightly different problem.

The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) had addressed this issue recently, but was compelled to withdraw its internal guidelines on the subject rather hastily, coincidentally just prior to Prime Minister Modi’s visit to America. Pharma industry and its lobbyists had projected this move of NPPA as a regressive step in the free pricing space.

The above measure of the NPPA was related to arbitrary and wide price variation within the same non-schedule drug molecules, manufactured by different pharma companies. This was important, as unlike many other non-drug products, patients buy medicines based on what the doctors’ prescribe for them. Moreover, patients undergoing medical treatment or their relatives usually have no inkling about the availability of lesser price equivalents of the same molecule/molecules as recommended by their doctors.

For example, Glimeperide, an anti-diabetic drug, sold by the market leader at ₹133 for a pack of 10 tablets, despite other equivalent brands being available at or below ₹40 or the MRP for a pack of 10 tablets (40 mg) of Telmisartan, used to treat hypertension varies from a low of ₹25 to as high as ₹385.

More volume sales of many of these high price drugs, despite availability of their low price equivalents, manufactured by equally well reputed companies, are primarily driven by various differentiated activities of the pharma companies to influence the doctors in favor of their respective products, as believed by many. Such type of free market encouraging free drug pricing, devoid of any possibility for the patients to exercise informed choices on the medicine price, defeats its core purpose.

Thus, absurd price variation within the same formulation of the same product molecules, even after accounting for all imaginable reasons for the price differences, was construed by the NPPA as ‘market failure’, as consumers cannot use their choice in product selection. In a market situation like this, intervention of the government is warranted for the sake of public health interest.

I hope, the Supreme Court of India would take note of this situation, in its next hearing.

A critical Question:

Based on ‘The New York Times’ report, I twitted (#@tapan_ray) on October 8, 2014 as follows:

“It happens in the US too? Government Demands Reasons For Rising Generic Drugs Costs, Otherwise Industry To Face New Regulation. http://nyti.ms/1vMi4No”

Subsequently, on October 9, 2014, Indian media flashed headlines like:

“Sun, Dr Reddy’s, Zydus Cadila named in US Congress price probe” or
“Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Dr. Reddy’s face US action on price hikes up to 8,000 percent”

In this scenario, where prices of some generic drugs sky rocket by 390 to 8,200 percent just in a year, the following basic question comes up for all stakeholders to ponder:

Does free pricing of drugs, even in free markets, work at all to protect patients’ health interest?

Conclusion:

In my view, quite unlike most other products, pricing freedom for medicines does not work in a free market due to a number of factors, even where intense competition exists from equivalent products placed in different price bands. This is mainly because, despite availability of lower price equivalents of the same or similar drugs, patients cannot exercise their pricing choice even within the same molecule, in any way, and is totally bound by what is prescribed by the doctors. This happens in India too and in all those countries where product substitution is illegal.

Moreover, it is an open secret that the pharma players heavily influence most of the heavy prescribers in their choice of drugs following various means. As a result, in many cases highest priced products become the category leader too, despite availability of lower price equivalents from equally reputed companies. This scenario makes many people believe that in a stable market situation drug prices skyrocket primarily due to dubious business practices giving rise to gross market manipulation

I reckon, just on drug pricing issue, many pharma players, both global and local, are inviting much avoidable business risks, not just in the developing markets such as India, but also in the largest free market economy of the world – the United States… or wherever opportunities for free drug pricing exist, irrespective of what it means to the patients. This mindset needs an urgent introspection, as the past would possibly not be replicated in the future.

Expectations from the civil society are now high that governments, both in the developing and also in the developed world, would keep a careful vigil to ensure that the process of earning a decent profit by the pharma players does not transgress into a limitless fetish for profiteering under any facade, pushing majority of patients succumb to life threatening ailments without having access to appropriate medicines. This defeats even the very purpose of drug innovation, as its access gets highly restricted mostly to the creamy layer of the society.

Many would consider this situation as grossly devoid of equity, unfair, unjust and in no away be allowed to continue. It is not an issue of taking moral high grounds either or scoring brownie points in a debate, but more importantly a critical ingredient to uphold ethics and values in pharma business, while re-creating its well-deserved public image, as it takes rapid strides towards inclusive growth.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?

Posted on October 6, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Unprecedented high profile engagement of the Indian Prime Minister with various interested groups during his recent visit to the United States under equally unprecedented media glare, has invited overwhelmingly more kudos than brickbats, from across the world.

However, in the context of upholding patients’ health interest in India, a lurking fear did creep in, immediately after his visit to the United States. This was related to whether or not demonstrably tough minded Prime Minister Modi has yielded to enormous pressure created by all powerful American drug lobby against the current Intellectual Property (IP) regime in India.

The backdrop:

This apprehension started bothering many as the Prime Minister appeared to have moved away from a much-reiterated stand of India that any IP related issue would be discussed only in a multi-lateral forum.

That India’s Patents Act is TRIP’s compliant, has been categorically endorsed by a vast majority of international and national experts, including, a key intellectual belonging to Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Think -Tank’ – Arvind Panagariya, Professor of Economics at Columbia University, USA.

Subsequent to my blog post of February 5, 2014, an article dated March 4, 2014 titled “India Must Call The US’ Bluff On Patents” penned by Panagariya stated as follows:

“Critics of the Indian patent law chastise it for flouting its international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. When confronted with these critics, my (Arvind Panagariya) response has been to advise them:

To urge the US to challenge India in the WTO dispute settlement body and test whether they are indeed right.

Nine years have elapsed since the Indian law came into force; and, while bitterly complaining about its flaws, the USTR has not dared challenge it in the WTO. Nor would it do so now. Why?

There is, at best, a minuscule chance that the USTR will win the case.

Against this, it must weigh the near certainty of losing the case and the cost associated with such a loss.

Once the Indian law officially passes muster with the WTO, the USTR and pharmaceutical lobbies will no longer be able to maintain the fiction that India violates its WTO obligations.

Even more importantly, it will open the floodgates to the adoption of the flexibility provisions of the Indian law by other countries.

Activists may begin to demand similar flexibilities even within the US laws.

On possible actions against India under the ‘Special 301’ provision of the US trade law, Professor Arvind Panagariya argues:

“Ironically, this provision itself was ruled inconsistent with the WTO rules in 1999 and the US is forbidden from taking any action under it in violation of its WTO obligations. This would mean that it couldn’t link the elimination of tariff preferences on imports from India to TRIPS violation by the latter. The withdrawal of preferences would, therefore, constitute an unprovoked unilateral action, placing India on firm footing for its retaliatory action.”

Examples of some global and local views:

On this score, a large number of business experts from all over the world have expressed their views, recently. Some examples are as follows:

The former Chairman of Microsoft India reportedly advised the new ‘Modi Regime’ as follows:

“While the new government must work hard to make India more business friendly, it must not cave in to pressure on other vital matters. For instance, on intellectual property protection, there is enormous pressure from global pharmaceutical companies for India to provide stronger patent protection and end compulsory licensing. These are difficult constraints for a country where 800 million people earn less than US$ 2 per day.”

Maruti Suzuki, India’s largest car manufacturer, aircraft maker Boeing, global pharma major Abbott and technology leader Honeywell have reportedly just not supported India’s IP regime, but have strongly voiced that IPR regime of India is “very strong” and at par with international standards.

The Chairman of the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt also echoes the above sentiment by articulating, “I think Indian government should stay firm on the Patents Act, which we have agreed.”

Other domestic pharma trade bodies and stakeholder groups in India expect similar action from the ‘Modi Government’.

Who are against Indian IP regime?

By and large, American pharma sector and their well-paid lobbyists representing drug multinationals are the strongest critics of Indian Patents Act 2005. They allege that Indian IP law discriminate against US companies and violates global norms, severely affecting their investments in India.

Recent stand of India on unilateral US measures:

Just to recapitulate, on April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘priority watch list country’.

On this report, India responded by saying that the ‘Special 301’ process is nothing but unilateral measures taken by the US under their Trade Act 1974, to create pressure on countries to increase IPR protection beyond the TRIPS agreement.

The Government of India has always maintained that its IPR regime is fully compliant with all international laws.

The Indo-US working group on IP:

The Indo-US high-level working group on IP would be constituted as part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF). The US-India TPF is the principal trade dialogue body between the countries. It has five focus groups: Agriculture, Investment, Innovation and Creativity, Services, and Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers.

The recent joint statement issued after talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama states:

This part of the Indo-US joint statement on IPR created almost a furore not just in India, but in other parts of the world too, interpreting that Prime Minister Modi has conceded ground to America on patents over patients.

IP experts’ expressed concerns even in the US:

Commenting on this specific move by the Obama Administration to push India on issues related to IP, even the independent American healthcare experts expressed grave concern.

Professor Brook K. Baker from the Northeastern University School of Law has reportedly said:

“This working group will give the US a dedicated forum to continue to pressure India to adopt TRIPS-plus IP measures, including repeal of Section 3(d) of the India Patents Act, adoption of data exclusivity/monopolies, patent term extensions, and restrictions on the use of compulsory licenses”.

Professor Baker further said:

“The US, in particular, will work to eliminate local working requirements that India is seeking to use to promote its own technological development…. The fact that this working group will have ‘decision-making’ powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian chicken coop.”

“FDI and innovation are also always rhetorically tied to strong IPRs despite inclusive evidence that typically shows that most low and middle-income countries do not benefit economically from IP maximization, since they are net importers of IP goods. It is also because the path to technological development is ordinarily through copying and incremental innovation – development tools that are severely undermined by IP monopoly rights and their related restrictive licensing agreements,” Baker elaborated.

Jamie Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International, an NGO working on knowledge governance also reportedly said:

“It is very clearly going to be used to pressure India to expand liberal grants of drug patents in India, and to block or restrain the use of compulsory licenses on drug patents.”

Has India conceded to American bullying?

On this backdrop, during Indian Prime Minister’s interaction with the President of the United States and his aids, it was reportedly decided to set up a high-level working group on IP, as a part of the TPF, to sort out contentious issues which have been hampering investments. This was interpreted by many experts that India has conceded to American bullying, as it apparently deviated from its earlier firm stand that the country would discuss IP issues only in multilateral forum such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).

No change in India’s position on patents:

Taking note of this humongous misunderstanding, on October 4, 2014, the Union Ministry of Commerce in an official clarification reiterated that during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to America:

There has been no change in India’s stated position on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

India has reaffirmed that the IPR legal regime in India is fully TRIPS-compliant.

A bilateral Innovation and Creativity Focus Group already exists in the Trade Policy Forum (TPF) since 2010. Any IP related issues have to be discussed by the United States only in the TPF. This group consults each other no less than twice a year on improving intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, enhancing awareness of intellectual property rights, fostering innovation and creativity, and increasing collaboration between American and Indian innovators.

The Indo-US joint statement issued now merely reiterates whatever has existed in the earlier Trade Policy Forum. IPR issues are critical for both the countries and India has been repeatedly raising the issue of copyright piracy and misappropriation of traditional knowledge with the US.

The US agreeing to discuss IPR issues through the bilateral mechanism of the Trade Policy forum is in fact a re-affirmation of India’s stand that issues need bilateral discussion and not unilateral action. The statement on the IPR issue will only strengthen the bilateral institutional mechanism.

Conclusion:

Most part of the above statement is indeed quite consistent to what happened even immediately before the Modi regime.

In September 2013, the Commerce Secretary and India’s Chief trade Negotiator, Rajeev Kher, while terming the decision by the US Trade Representative for not labeling India with its worst offender tag in IP as a ‘very sensible decision’, strongly defended India’s right to overrule patents in special cases to provide access to affordable innovative medicines to its 1.2 billion people.

Moreover, many recent judicial verdicts have vindicated that a strong and balanced patent regime of the country not just secures the bonafide rights of the patentee, but at the same time ensures genuine needs of the public and in case of pharma of the ailing patients.

The Indian Supreme Court judgment on Glivec of Novartis in the recent past, have re-established, beyond an iota of doubt, that to secure and enforce patents rights of genuine inventions, other than evergreening, India provides a very transparent IP framework.

Taking all these into consideration, it seems unlikely to me that Prime Minister Modi, who is a self-confessed nationalist and holds India’s interest first, would in any way compromise with the country’s TRIPS compliant patent regime, sacrificing millions of Indian patients’ health interest at the altar of American business needs.

The above official clarification by the Union Ministry of Commerce is expected to tame the fire of this raging debate to a great extent. However, the grave concern expressed in the following lines by the independent healthcare experts, such as Professor Baker, on the high-level IP working group, cannot just be wished away:

“The fact that this working group will have ‘decision-making’ powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian chicken coop.”

That said, from your government Mr. Prime Minister “Yeh Dil Maange Much More”.

By: Tapan J. Ray

“Make in India…Sell Anywhere in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

Posted on September 29, 2014 by Tapan Ray

In his Independent Day speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort on August 15, 2014, Indian Prime Minister Modi gave a clarion call to all investors of the world, “Come, make in India”, “Come, manufacture in India”, “Sell in any country of the world, but manufacture here”.

The Prime Minister did not stop there. In his inimitable style, following it through on September 25, 2014 he gave an official status to ‘Make in India’ slogan and launched a global campaign.

“My definition of FDI for the people of India is First Develop India. This is also a responsibility for the people of India,” he further clarified.

An Indian perspective:

If I juxtapose this vision of the Prime Minister in the Indian pharmaceutical industry perspective, one finds that many small, medium and large size local domestic manufacturers are currently manufacturing drugs not just for the domestic market, but are also exporting in large quantities to various countries of the world, including, North America, South America and Europe.

The United States (US) is one of the most critical markets for majority of the Indian drug exporters. This transaction was taking place without any major regulatory hitches since quite some time. Unfortunately, over the last few years, mostly the Federal Drug Administration of the US (USFDA) and the United Kingdom (UK)’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have started raising serious doubts on the quality of medicines manufactured in India, making a significant impact on the drug exports of the country.

Most of these quality issues are related to ‘Data Integrity’ in the dug manufacturing and its documentation processes.

The impact:

According to industry data, in 2013-14, Indian drug exports registered the slowest growth in nearly the last 15 years. In this fiscal year, pharma exports of the country with a turnover of US$ 14.84 billion grew at a meager 1.2 percent. Pharmexcil attributed its reason to USFDA related regulatory issues and increasing global competition.

US accounts for about 25 percent of India’s pharma exports and its Federal Drug Administration (USFDA) has been expressing, since quite a while, serious concerns on ‘Data Integrity’ at the agency’s previously approved production facilities of a large number of Indian pharma players.

The issue is causing not just a serious concern to USFDA and some other overseas drug regulatory agencies, but also posing a huge threat to future growth potential of Indian drug exports.

It is worth noting that Indian government had set an objective, in its strategy document, to register a turnover of US$ 25 billion for pharma exports in 2014-15. In all probability, it would fall far short of this target at the end of this fiscal, predominantly for related reasons.

Why is so much of ‘fuss’ on ‘Data Integrity’?

Broadly speaking, ‘Data Integrity’ in pharmaceutical manufacturing ensures that finished products meet pre-established specifications, such as, for purity, potency, stability and sterility. If data integrity is breached in any manner or in absence of credible data, the product becomes of dubious quality in the eyes of drug regulators.

Manufacturing related ‘Data Integrity’ is usually breached, when data from a database is deliberately or otherwise modified or destroyed or even cooked.

Over the last several years, ‘Data Integrity’ related issues in India are attracting enormous attention of both the USFDA and the MHRA, UK. As a result, concerned pharma manufacturing facilities are receiving Import Alerts/Warning Letters from the respective overseas drug regulators, refusing entry of those medicines mostly in the United States and some in the UK.

Recent warning letters:

Just over a year – from May 2013 to July 2014, around a dozen ‘Warning Letters’ have been sent to the Indian drug manufacturers by the USFDA on ‘Data Integrity’ related issue, as follows:

	Recent ‘Warning Letter’ issued to:	Date of issue
1.	Marck Biosciences Ltd.	08. 07. 2014
2.	Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt Ltd.	17. 06. 2014
3.	Sun Pharmaceutical Industries	07. 05. 2014
4.	Canton Laboratories Private Limited	27. 02. 2014
5.	USV Limited	06. 02. 2014
6.	Wockhardt Limited	25. 11. 2013
7.	Agila Specialties Private Limited	09. 09. 2013
8.	Posh Chemicals Private Limited	02. 08. 2013
9.	Aarti Drugs Limited	30. 07. 2013
10.	Wockhardt Limited	18. 07. 2013
11.	Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd	01. 07. 2013
12.	RPG Life Sciences Limited	28. 05. 2013

(Source: RAPS, 19 August 2014)

Another report states that USFDA has, so far, banned at least 36 manufacturing plants in India from selling products in the US.

Importance of US for Indian generic players:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are sold there, come from India. Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this area is indeed mind-boggling.

The ‘Data Integrity’ issue is not restricted to just US or UK:

A report quoting researchers led by Roger Bate, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and funded by the The Legatum Institute and the Humanities Research Council of Canada, concluded that many Indian pharma companies follow double manufacturing standards, as they are sending poor quality drugs to Africa compared to the same pills sold in other countries. This study was based on tests of 1,470 samples produced by 17 Indian drug manufacturers.

Besides India, the researchers took drug samples from pharmacies in Africa and middle-income countries, including China, Russia and Brazil.

According to this paper, the researchers found that 17.5 percent of samples of the tuberculosis therapy rifampicin sold in Africa tested substandard, which means the drug has less than 80 percent of the active ingredient than what it should otherwise. Against this number, in India, 7.8 percent of the medicine sampled was found substandard.

Moreover, Almost 9 percent of samples of the widely used antibiotic ciprofloxacin sold in Africa tested substandard, as compared to 3.3 percent in India.

Thorny issues around golden opportunities:

Much reported breach in manufacturing ‘Data Integrity’ detected at the manufacturing sites in India, are throwing fresh doubts on the efficacy and safety profile of generic/branded generic medicines, in general, produced in the country and more importantly, whether they are putting the patients’ health at risk.

A new analysis by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research pointed out some thorny issues related to ‘Data Integrity’ of drugs produced by the Indian pharmaceutical companies, which supply around 40 percent of the generic drugs sold in the United States, as stated above.

The researchers examined nearly 1,500 India-made drug samples, collected from 22 cities and found that “up to 10 percent of some medications contained insufficient levels of the key active ingredients or concentrations so low, in fact, that they would not be effective against the diseases they’re designed to treat.”

The report also highlighted that international regulators detected more than 1,600 errors in 15 drug applications submitted by Ranbaxy. The Bureau Officials commented that these pills were “potentially unsafe and illegal to sell.”

Frequent drug recalls by Indian pharma majors:

The above findings came in tandem with a series of drug recalls made recently by the Indian pharma companies in the US.

Some of the reported recent drug recalls in America, arising out of manufacturing related issues at the facilities of two well-known Indian pharma majors, which are going to merge soon, are as follows:

Sun Pharmaceuticals recalled nearly 400,000 bottles of the decongestant cetirizine (Zyrtec) and 251,882 of the antidepressant venlafaxine (Effexor) this May, because the pills failed to dissolve properly. The drugs were distributed by the drug maker’s US subsidiary Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, but were manufactured in India.

In the same month – May, Ranbaxy recalled 30,000 packs of the allergy drugs loratadine and pseudo-ephedrine sulphate extended release tablets because of manufacturing defects in packaging.

In March, Sun Pharma recalled a batch of a generic diabetes drug bound for the US after an epilepsy drug was found in it. A patient discovered the error after noticing the wrong medication in the drug bottle.

Again in March, Ranbaxy recalled nearly 65,000 bottles of the statin drug atorvastatin calcium (Lipitor) after 20-milligram tablets were found in sealed bottles marked 10-milligrams. A pharmacist in the U.S. discovered the mix up.

Indian media reinforces the point:

Indian media (TNN) also reported that there is no quality control even for life-saving generic drugs and the government is apathetic on ensuring that the quality protocol of these drugs is properly observed.

This happens, as the report states, despite government’s efforts to push generic drugs, as they are more affordable. The report gave an example of a life-saving drug, Liposomal Amphotericin B, which is used to treat fungal infections in critically ill patients.

Are all these drugs safe enough for Indian Patients?

Though sounds awkward, it is a fact that India is a country where ‘export quality’ attracts a premium. Unintentionally though, with this attitude, we indirectly accept that Indian product quality for domestic consumption is not as good.

Unfortunately, in the recent years, increasing number of even ‘export quality’ drug manufacturing units in India are being seriously questioned, warned and banned by the overseas drug regulators, such as USFDA and MHRA, UK, just to ensure dug safety for the patients in their respective countries.

Taking all these into consideration, and noting increasing instances of blatant violations of cGMP standards and ‘Data Integrity’ requirements for ‘export quality’ drugs, one perhaps would shudder to think, what could possibly be the level of conformance to cGMP for the drugs manufactured solely for the consumption of local patients in India.

A cause of concern, as generic drugs are more cost effective to patients:

It has been widely recognized globally that the use of generic drugs significantly reduces out-of-pocket expenditure of the patients and also payers’ spending.

The findings of a study conducted by the Researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Harvard Medical School and CVS Health has just been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on September 15, 2014. In this study the researchers investigated whether the use of generic versus brand name statins can play a role in medication adherence and whether or not this leads to improved health outcomes. The study concluded that patients taking generic statins were more likely to adhere to their medication and also had a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events and death.

In this study, the mean co-payment for the generic statin was US$10, as against US$48 for brand-name statins. It is generally expected that the generic drugs would be of high quality, besides being affordable.

I deliberated on a related subject in one of my earlier blog posts of November 11, 2013 titled, “USFDA” Import Bans’: The Malady Calls For Strong Bitter Pills”.

Conclusion:

According to USFDA data, from 2013 onwards, about 20 drug manufacturing facilities across India attracted ‘Import Alerts’ as against seven from China, two each from Australian, Canadian and Japanese units and one each from South African and German facilities.

Unfortunately, despite intense local and global furore on this subject, Indian drug regulators at the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), very strangely, do not seem to be much concerned on the ‘Data Integrity’ issue, at least, not just yet.

In my view, ‘Data Integrity’ issues are mostly not related to any technical or other knowledge deficiency. From the “Warning Letters” of the USFDA to respective Indian companies, it appears that these breaches are predominantly caused by falsification or doctoring of critical data. Thus, it basically boils down to a mindset issue, which possibly pans across the Indian pharma industry, irrespective of size of operations of a company.

Indian Prime Minister’s passionate appeal aimed at all investors, including from India, to “Make in India” and “Sell Anywhere in The World”, extends to pharma industry too, both local and global. The drug makers also seem to be aware of it, but the ghost keeps haunting unabated, signaling that the core mindset has remained unchanged despite periodic lip service and public utterances for corrective measures by a number of head honchos.

Any attempt to trivialize this situation, I reckon, could meet with grave consequences, jeopardizing the thriving pharma exports business of India, and in that process would betray the Prime Ministers grand vision for the country that he epitomized with, “Make in India” and “Sell Anywhere in The World”.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Posted on September 22, 2014 by Tapan Ray

I had mentioned in my blog post of August 4, 2014, titled “Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment beyond reach of Most Indians” that in line with Gilead’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company would offer to license production of sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi) to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow, allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.

Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) is a once-a-day patented drug of Gilead for cure of chronic hepatitis C infection in most patients. Sovaldi has been priced at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet in the developed markets with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high even for many Americans and Europeans.

Gilead has also announced that it has set a minimum threshold price for Sovaldi of US$ 300 (Rs.18,000) a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost of Sovaldi per patient would be about US$ 900 (Rs.54,000) for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000 (Rs1.8 Crore). The company would offer this price to at least 80 countries.

Breaking-news in India:

On September 15, 2014, International media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

Another reason of Gilead’s selecting the Indian generic manufacturers could possibly be, that of much of the global supply of generic finished formulations is manufactured in India, especially for the developing countries of the world.

Patent status, broad strategy and the possibility:

It is worth noting here that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) has not recognized Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent for the domestic market, just yet. This patent application has been opposed on the ground that it is an “old science, known compound.”

It is interesting that the Indian Pharmaceutical Association (IPA) and others, such as, Delhi Network of Positive People and Natco have reportedly opposed Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent application. If the patent for this drug does not come through, low priced generic versions of Sovaldi, without any licensing agreement with Gilead, would possibly capture the Indian market.

Conversely, due to unaffordable price of Sovaldi for most of the Hepatitis C patients, even if a patent is granted for this drug in India, the sword of Compulsory License (CL) on the ground of ‘reasonably affordable price’ looms large on this product.

To negate the possibility of any CL, in the best-case scenario of a patent grant, Gilead seems to have decided to enter into licensing agreement with seven other Indian generic manufacturers to create a sense of adequate competition in the market, as many believe.

However, if the IPO considers sofosbuvir not patentable in India, it would indeed be a double whammy for Gilead. Without any patent protection, all these in licensing agreements may also fall flat on the face, paving the way of greater access of much lesser priced generic sofosbuvir to patients, as indicated above.

The action replay:

If we flash back to the year 2006, we shall see that Gilead had followed exactly the same strategy for another of its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

1. Voluntary license:

At that time also Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead.

Gilead did sign a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

The arrangement was somewhat like this. Gilead would charge a royalty of 5 percent on the access price of US$ 200 a year for the drug. Any company that signs a manufacturing agreement with Gilead to manufacture API of tenofovir would be able to sell them only to those generic manufacturers that have voluntary license agreements with Gilead.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

2. Patent challenge:

Like sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), Gilead had filed a patent application for tenofovir (Viread) in India at that time. However, the ‘Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDs’ challenged this patent application on similar grounds.

3. Patent grant refused:

In September 2009, IPO refused the grant of patent for tenofovir to Gilead, citing specific reasons for its non-conformance to the Indian Patents Act 2005. As a result, the voluntary license agreements that Gilead had already signed with the Indian generic manufacturers were in jeopardy.

Current status:

In 2014, while planning the launch strategy of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) for India, Gilead seems to have mimicked the ‘Action Replay’ of 2006 involving tenofovir, at least, in the first two stages, as detailed above. Only the patent status of sofosbuvir from the IPO is now awaited. If IPO refuses patent grant for sofosbuvir, Gilead’s fate in India with sofosbuvir could exactly be the same as tenofovir, almost frame by frame.

Gilead and the two top players in India:

Very briefly, I would deliberate below the strategic stance taken by two top generic players in india, from 2006 to 2014, in entering into voluntary licensing agreements with Gilead for two of its big products, as I understand.

Ranbaxy:

In my view, the stand of Ranbaxy in Gilead’s India strategy of voluntary licensing in the last eight years has remained unchanged. It involves both sofosbuvir and tenofovir.Thus, there has been a clear consistency in approach on the part of Ranbaxy on this issue.

Cipla:

Conversely, an apparent shift in Cipla’s strategic position during this period has become a bone of contention to many. For tenofovir, Cipla did not sign any voluntary license agreement with Gilead. On the contrary, it came out with its own version of this product, that too much before IPO refused to grant patent for this drug.

However, unlike 2006, Cipla decided to sign a voluntary license agreement with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) in 2014, though no patent has yet been granted for this product in India.

Has Cipla changed its position on drug patent?

I find in various reports that this contentious issue keeps coming up every now and then today. Some die-hards have expressed disappointments. Others articulated that the new dispensation in Cipla management, has decided to take a different stance in such matter altogether.

In my view, no tectonic shift has taken place in Cipla’s position on the drug patent issue, just yet.

The owner of Cipla, the legendary Dr.Yusuf Hamied has always been saying: ‘I Am Not Against Patents … I Am Against Monopolies’

He has also reportedly been quoted saying: “About 70 per cent of the patented drugs sold worldwide are not invented by the owning companies”.

He had urged the government, instead of having to fight for CL for expensive lifesaving medicines by the generic drug makers, where voluntary licenses are not forthcoming, the government needs to pass a law giving the generic players “automatic license of rights” for such drugs, making these medicines affordable and thereby improving access to patients. In return, the local generic manufacturers would pay 4 percent royalty on net sales to patent holders. He was also very candid in articulating, if Big Pharma would come into the developing markets, like India, with reasonable prices, Cipla would not come out against it.

According to Dr. Hamied, “When you are in healthcare, you are saving lives. You have to have a humanitarian approach. You have to take into account what it costs to make and what people can pay.”

Considering all these, I reckon, the core value of Cipla and its stand on patents have not changed much, if at all, for the following reasons:

The voluntary license agreement of Cipla with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) along with six other generic manufacturers of India, unlike tenofovir, still vindicates its strong opposition to drug monopoly, respecting product patents.

Cipla along with manufacturing of sofosbuvir, maintains its right to market the product at a price that it considers affordable for the patients in India.

Conclusion:

Indian Patents Act 2005 has the requisite teeth to tame the most aggressive and ruthless players in drug pricing even for the most feared diseases of the world, such as, HIV/AIDS, cancer, Hepatitis C and others.

Many global drug companies, resourceful international pharma lobby groups and governments in the developed world are opposing this commendable Act, tooth and nail, generating enormous international political pressure and even chasing it in the highest court of law in India, but in vain. Glivec case is just one example.

Some pharma majors of the world seem to be attempting to overcome this Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest in India. Their strategy includes not just voluntary licenses, but also not so transparent, though well hyped, ‘Patient Access Programs’ and the so called ‘flexible pricing’, mostly when the concerned companies are able to sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act 2005.

It has happened once with even Gilead in 2006. The drug was tenofovir. Following the same old strategy of voluntary licenses and relatively lower pricing, especially when its drug patent is pending with IPO post patent challenges, Gilead intends to launch Sovaldi in India now.

Carrying the baggage of its past in India, Gilead seems to have been caught between a rock and the hard place with sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) launch in the country. On the one hand, the risk of uncertain outcome of its patent application and on the other, the risk of CL for exorbitant high price of the drug, if the patent is granted by the IPO. Probably considering all these, the company decided to repeat its 2006 tenofovir strategy of voluntary licenses, yet again in 2014, for Sovaldi in India.

As of today, Sovaldi strategy of Gilead in India appears to be progressing in the same direction as tenofovir, the way I see it. However, the final decision of IPO on the grant of its patent holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, marketing warfare of pharma majors of the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: pharmaceutical

Pharma & Healthcare: Where The Healers Turn Looters?

Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Much Beyond Profit Making?

Awaiting ‘The Moment of Truth’ on ‘Working of Patents’ in India

Does Drug Pricing Freedom Benefit Patients in A Free-Market Economy?

Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?

“Make in India…Sell Anywhere in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

Why is so much of ‘fuss’ on ‘Data Integrity’?

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India