Quantum Growth Envisaged in Government Procurement for Pharmaceuticals: A Challenging Ball Game for Pharma Players

Posted on February 27, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Direct procurement by the Governments of various countries is attracting increasing importance not just at the domestic level, but internationally, as well. The systems adopted for Government Procurement (GP) globally are aimed at making a significant difference in the effectiveness of utilization of the exchequers’ fund and the quality of governance in the respective countries. Absolute transparency in the entire process of GP, extending fair and equal opportunities to all suppliers, is of utmost importance.

According to ‘The Center of International Development at the Harvard University, USA’, Government Procurement of goods and services typically accounts for 10-15% of GDP for the developed countries, and up to 20% of GDP for the developing nations. As a result, the local GP markets have started attracting attention of even the overseas suppliers to make this process an integral part of Free-Trade Agreements (FTAs) between countries.

GP was excluded in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiated in 1947. However, as the years progressed the members of WTO started exploring various ways to include GP in the multilateral trading system.

The proponents of WTO agreements on GP argue that the purchase decision of the governments on GP of goods and services should be non-discriminatory, irrespective of who produces the goods or renders required services, including foreign suppliers, if any.

GPA- The plurilateral Agreement:

In January 1, 1994 along with ‘Uruguay Round’ a landmark agreement was reached on GP, which is known as “The plurilateral Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA)”. This agreement was administered by a Committee of WTO members, who are Parties to the GPA and was signed by 41 of the 153 members of the WTO.

India joins as an observer in GPA – the first step for membership:

On Feb 11, 2010 ‘Reuters’ reported that “India has joined the World Trade Organization’s government procurement agreement as an observer, a first step to membership in the scheme regulating trade in goods bought by governments”. With this India joined other 22 WTO members with the same observer status, when 9 members including China are in the process of negotiation for full membership of the GPA.

On December 15, 2011, WTO reported a historic agreement by the members of GPA to ‘improve the disciplines for GP and expand the market access coverage valued at between 80 to 100 billion dollars a year’.

The opposition to GPA:

That said, those who oppose GPA also put forth strong arguments. They believe that such agreements instead of creating so called a ‘level playing field’ for all, would further complicate the situation where the developing countries, leave aside the least developed ones, would continue to remain at a disadvantage as compared to the developed industrial nations.

The developing countries and the relief organizations argue that the growing industries of the developing nations will suffer most, if matured global companies are allowed to compete for GP together with the domestic players. Such a situation, they apprehend, could snow ball into huge balance of payment issues for the developing and the least developed nations.

Pharmaceuticals: Second largest item in public healthcare budget:

According to WHO, for the developing countries like India pharmaceuticals are the second largest item of expenditure, after personnel costs, ranging from 8 per cent to 12 per cent of the public health budget. Thus, such fund should be utilized with utmost care within a transparent and highly efficient GP system. It is envisaged, that efficient GP systems will play critical role in improving access to medicines in India.

GP for Pharmaceuticals in India:

The process of procurement of drugs and pharmaceuticals by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India is usually entrusted to an agency known as ‘Hospital Services Consultancy Corporation (HSCC)’. This multidisciplinary consultancy organization was set up to extend quality consultancy services in healthcare and other social sectors of the country. HSCC undertakes the following:

Procurement of drugs and pharmaceuticals
Tendering process
Placement of orders
Follow-up, inspection and dispatch

So far, many World Bank supported programs for procurement of drugs and pharmaceuticals for Malaria, Tuberculosis, and Reproductive Child Health etc. were initiated by the HSCC. The procurement services of HSCC are in line with the procedures adopted by the World Bank.

Health being a State subject in India, pharmaceutical procurement is made by both the Central and State Governments, besides large private health institutions.

Though over 25 per cent of the total public sector drug volume is procured by the Central Government, there is no single Central Government procurement agency. Following are the key agencies currently handling the Central Government procurement for pharmaceuticals through competitive tendering process:

Central Government Health Services (CGHS)
Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS)
Medical Stores Organization (MSO)

Examples of GP in the states:

Many state Governments have already started putting in place the GP process for pharmaceuticals in their respective states. This process is expected to gain momentum as we move ahead. Examples of GP system of some of the State Governments in India are as follows:

Delhi:

In 1996, to promote rational drug use with high quality of medicines, the ‘Delhi Society for Promotion of Rational Use of Drugs (DSPRUD)’ with the technical assistance from WHO introduced a pooled procurement system for all state-run hospitals and 150 Primary Health Centers (PHCs) in Delhi.

This robust procurement system with a competitive bidding process has reportedly resulted in price reduction of high quality medicines by 30-40 per cent. State-run hospitals and the PHCs now supply these prescriptions medicines to over 80 per cent of patients.

WHO, encouraged by the success of the ‘Delhi Model’, has recommended it to the other States of India. Currently the following State Governments are implementing the program in their respective states:

Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Punjab
Himachal Pradesh

Tamil Nadu:

In January 1995, Tamil Nadu Government had set up a Government-run Company known as, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation (TNMSC). The main purpose of TNMSC was to make all essential drugs available in nearly 2000 government medical institutions throughout the State, with a well-structured, uniform and standardized system for procurement, storage and distribution of medicines.

To ensure efficient procurement of high quality drugs at competitive prices, TNMSC follows an open tendering system for purchases only from reputed manufacturers with a pre-specified minimum overall business turnover, having a market standing of not less than three years. Standby suppliers are also selected at the same time to eliminate any drug shortages for delayed or non-supply by the first supplier.

The competitive procurement bid system has reportedly enabled TNMSC to save on drugs to the tune of 36% of the allocation.

Andhra Pradesh (AP):

In AP public health care system delivers services at all levels of primary, secondary and tertiary care.

In 1998, a centralized pooled drug procurement system was implemented in AP with the establishment of the Drug Procurement Wing (DPW) within the ‘Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure State Development Corporation (APISDC)’.

For high quality GP they introduced a two tier system for bidding and procurement, starting with the technical bid and followed by the actual financial bidding process.

In this system, details of drug requirements are collected from public hospitals within the state, collated by the DPW and thereafter consolidated orders are placed to the competitive bid winners for supplying required essential medicines at the medical stores of each district of the state.

Odisha:

Odisha has a centralized system of procurement of drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM).

To ensure quality procurement, a pre-qualification stipulation of quality parameters and competitive price quotations are looked at.

Small Scale Industries (SSIs) are entitled to 5 per cent price preference along with other relaxations like, partial exemption from earnest money deposit and concession in sales tax.

A recent evaluation of the Drugs Distribution System in Odisha by WHO has highlighted that the key NLEM drug availability in all the centers except one in the state ranged from 80 to 100%.

UHC – A potential GP growth booster:

The recommendation no. 3.1.10 of the report titled ‘High Level Expert Group Report on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for India’, instituted by the Planning Commission, clearly indicates that purchases of all health care services under the UHC system should be undertaken either directly by the Central and state governments through their Departments of Health or by quasi-governmental autonomous agencies established for the purpose.

PMO push for free drugs at Government hospitals:

Quoting the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), ‘The Times of India’ on February 13, 2012 reported that availability of free medicines to all patients visiting any government health facility across the country will soon be a reality, as the Ministry of Health (MoH) is planning to spend around Rs 30,000 Crore under ‘free-medicines-for-all’ scheme with the strong support of the PMO.

Quantum growth envisaged in the GP system:

UHC along with the above free medicine initiative by the MoH and expanded coverage of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)/ National Urban Health Mission (NUHM) are expected to make GP for pharmaceuticals a critical procurement initiative of the nation.

This appears more realistic when seen together with the increase in public spend allocation on health by the Planning Commission of India from current 0.9 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP during the Twelfth Five Year Plan period.

Thus a quantum growth is envisaged in the GP system for pharmaceuticals within the country.

Conclusion:

From all available indicators, it appears that GP for pharmaceuticals in India will assume immense importance to both the global and local pharmaceutical companies.

The Central Government, with ‘The Draft Public Procurement Bill, 2011’, seems to have already started moving in this direction. The enactment of this Bill will facilitate the Government not only to effectively leverage the state bargaining power for the prices of medicines, but also to ensure efficient delivery of high quality products to a very large section of the society.

Quite in tandem various State Governments should also either create afresh or revamp the existing procurement system, as the case may be, to put in place a robust GP mechanism in their respective states.

One clear outcome of the expansion of GP system for sure will be enormous pricing pressure on the pharmaceutical players in India, which will be quite challenging to navigate.

The scenario will get even more complex and heated up, especially for the smaller pharmaceutical players, as and when India becomes a signatory to the GPA of the WTO, opening its door wide ajar for the large global players to participate in the pharmaceutical bidding process of the Government, well facilitated by various FTAs.

In this rapidly evolving environment, are the pharma players, both global and local, ready with appropriate strategies and systems in place to participate in yet another challenging new ball game of low margin and high volume pharmaceutical business in India?

By: Tapan J Ray

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

The Vaccine Market of India: A rejuvenation is in progress

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Even in couple of decades back, ‘Vaccines Market’ in India did not use to be considered as a focus area by many pharmaceutical companies. Commoditization of this market with low profit margin and unpredictable interest of the government/the doctors towards immunization were the main reasons. Large global players like Glaxo exited the vaccine market at that time by withdrawing products like, Tetanus Toxoid, Triple Antigen and other vaccines from the market.

Currently, the above scenario is fast changing. The vaccine market is getting rejuvenated not only with the National Immunization Program (NIP) of the country, but also with the emergence of newer domestic vaccines players and introduction of novel vaccines by the global players, which we shall discuss below.

In addition, the ‘Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) Committee on Immunization’ now recommends the ‘best individual practices schedule’ for the children in consultation with their respective parents. Such schedule may not conform to NIP and include newer vaccines, broadening the scope of use of vaccines in general.

Global Market:

According to GBI Research Report, overall global vaccines market was valued at US$ 28 billion in 2010 and is expected to reach US$ 56.7 billion by 2017 with a CAGR of 11.5%. The key growth driver of this segment will be introduction of newer vaccines, which are currently either in the regulatory filing stage or in the late stages of clinical development.

The important international players in the vaccines market are GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis AG, Merck and SP-MSD, representing around 88% of the total vaccine segment globally.

Indian Market:

Year	Value Rs. Cr.	Growth %
2007	389	-
2008	383	-2
2009	476	24
2010	726	53

Source: IMS – Health MAT June 2010

India is one of largest markets for all types of vaccines in the world. The growth is being driven by the new generation and combination vaccines, like DPT with Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A and Injectable polio vaccine. The demand for veterinary vaccines is also showing ascending trend. Pediatric vaccines contribute to around 60% of the total vaccines market in India.

McKinsey in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance, realizing true potential“ stated that at 2% penetration, the vaccines market of India is significantly under-penetrated with an estimated turnover of around US$ 250 million, where the private segment accounts for two-thirds of the total. McKinsey expects the market to grow to US$ 1.7 billion by 2020.

In India companies like, Serum Institute, Shantha Biotecnics, Bharat Biotech and Panacea Biotech are poised to take greater strides in this direction. Bharat Biotech is incidentally the largest Hepatitis B vaccine producer in the world. Likewise, Serum Institute is reportedly one of the largest suppliers of vaccines to over a 130 countries of the world and claim that ’1 out of every 2 children immunized worldwide gets at least one vaccine produced by Serum Institute.’

Indian Vaccine Market: Domestic vs MNCs:

In the domestic vaccine market the market share of the Indian players is gradually improving as compared to their multinational counterparts.

Types	June 2009 MAT	% Value Growth	June 2010 MAT	% Value Growth
Indian Companies	55%	27	59%	64
MNCs	45%	21	41%	38

Source IMS-Health – June 2010 MAT

Indian Vaccine Market: Top 10 Companies:

Rank	Company	Value (Rs. Cr)	%Market Share	%Value Growth
	Vaccine Market	726	100	53
1	GSK	131	18	23
2	Sanofi Aventis	129	18	>>
3	Pfizer	71	10	75
4	Novartis	68	9	-12
5	Serum Institute	68	9	40
6	Panacea Biotech	59	8	57
7	VHB Lifesciences	33	5	>>
8	Zydus Cadila	32	4	56
9	MSD	31	4	>>
10	Shantha Biotech	24	3	15

Source IMS-Health – June 2010 MAT

Indian Vaccine Market: Top Therapies:

Therapies	Value (Rs.Cr.)	%Market Share	% Value Growth		Incr. Value (Rs. Cr)
Therapies	Value (Rs.Cr.)	%Market Share	June’09 MAT	June’10 MAT	June’09 MAT	June’10 MAT
Vaccine Market	726.1	100	24	53	93	250
Toddler Vaccine	211	29	55	60	47	79
Adult Vaccine	205	28	-4	22	-7	37
Paediatric Combination Vaccines	146	20	67	>>	28	77
Paediatric Single Vaccines	131	18	25	32	20	32
All Other Vaccines	33	5	—	431	6	27

Source IMS-Health – June 2010 MAT

Indian Vaccine Market: Top 10 Brands:

Rank	Brands	Company	Value (Rs.Cr.)	Value Growth %		Incr. value (Rs. Cr.)
Rank	Brands	Company	Value (Rs.Cr.)	June’09 Mat	June’10 MAT	June’09 Mat	June’10 MAT
	Vaccine Market		726	24	53	93.1	250
1	Prevenar	Pfizer	71	150	75	24	30
2	Rabipur	Novartis	68	4	-12	3	-9
3	Pentaxim	Sanofi Aventis	46	>>	>>	7	39
4	Havrix	GSK	37	9	47	2	12
5	Varivax	VHB	33	59	>>	5	18
6	Vaxirab	Zydus Cadila	32	-11	56	-3	11
7	Varil Rix	GSK	25	-3	-9	-1	-2
8)	Gardasil	MSD	22	—-	>>	5	16
9	Verorab	Sanofi Aventis	21	—-	—-	0	21
10	Rotarix	GSK	21	—-	>>	10	11

Source: IMS-Health – June 2010 MAT

Indian Vaccine Market: Top 10 New Introductions:

NIs	Company	Launch Date	Value (Rs. Cr)	Incr. Value (Rs. Cr)
Vaccine Market			104	79
Gardasil	MSD	10/2008	22	16
Rotarix	GSK	07/2008	21	11
Pentavac	Serum Institute	10/2008	16	12
Cervarix	GSK	02/2009	11	10
Polprotec	Panacea Biotech	07/2008	9	6
Xprab	Ranbaxy	10/2009	7	7
Quadrovax	Serum Institute	11/2008	4	3
Comvac- 5	Bharat Biotech	02/2009	3	3
Pentavac – SD	Serum Institute	11/2009	2	2
Shan HIB- DPT	Shantha Biotech	09/2008	2	1

Source:IMS-Health – June 2010 MAT

Action areas to boost growth:

McKinsey in its above report ‘India Pharma 2020’ indicated that the action in the following 4 areas by the vaccine players will drive the vaccine market growth in India:

Companies need to go for local production of vaccines or leverage supply partnerships. GlaxoSmithKline’s local partnership for the HiB vaccine with Bio-manguinhos in Brazil has been cited as an example.
Companies will need to conduct studies on the economic impact of vaccination and establish vaccine safety and performance standards.
Extension of vaccine coverage beyond pediatricians and inclusion of general practitioners, consulting physicians and gynaecologists will be essential.
Companies will need to enhance supply chain reliability and reduce costs.

Conclusions:

On January 7, 2012, while requesting the ‘Overseas Indian Medical Professionals’ to partner with the institutions in India, the Health Minister, in his address, announced that the Ministry of Health has already introduced the second dose of measles vaccine and Hepatitis-B vaccination across the country. Moreover, from December, 2011 a ‘Pentavalent Vaccine’ has been introduced, initially in 2 States, covering 1.5 million children of India.

All these augur quite well for the country. However, keeping in view of the humongous disease burden of India, immunization program with various types of vaccines should receive active encouragement from the government as disease prevention initiatives, at least, keeping the future generation in mind.

If such policy measures are initiated in the country, without delay, the domestic vaccine market , in turn, will receive further growth momentum, together with newer players and modern vaccines coming in, to help addressing effectively a significant area of the healthcare concerns of the country.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

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

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

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

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

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

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

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

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

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

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

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

An opposite view:

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

Money
Time
Risk

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

Healthcare Tourism: India needs to step on the gas

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Healthcare Tourism or Medical Tourism are the terminologies initially coined by the travel agents and the media when patients travel outside their national boundaries to seek either more specialized and/or cheaper but high quality healthcare available in other countries.

World Health Organization (WHO) defines Healthcare Tourism as an activity that covers:

Medical care
Sickness & well-being
Rehabilitation & recuperation

The reasons:

The main reasons of healthcare tourism are:

High medical costs, especially for those patients who are under-insured or uninsured
Long waiting period for elective surgery
To avail technologically more advanced medical treatment and care

For example, USA though globally recognized as one of the technologically most advanced countries in providing high quality healthcare to the patients, the cost of comprehensive healthcare in the country is often beyond reach of many Americans.

In not too distant past (2000), the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked USA as the country with most expensive healthcare systems in the world. Moreover, it has also been reported that in the US, the fees paid to doctors for medical services are usually much higher for an ‘uninsured’ patient than one who is ‘insured’.

Such a scenario has given rise to situation where many Americans travel out of the country for a lower cost medical care, if not adequately insured.

‘Time Health’ in an article titled ‘A Brief History of Medical Tourism’ stated as follows:

- In 2006: 150,000 US citizens underwent medical treatment abroad

- In 2007: the number grew to an estimated 750,000

- In 2008: it increased to 1.3 million

- In 2010: the figure further swelled to an estimated 6 million citizens.

The article commented that “Patients are packing suitcases and boarding planes for everything from face lifts to heart bypasses to fertility treatments.”

The key influencers and preferred destinations:

The most common influencer for healthcare tourism globally, as stated earlier, is lack of or inadequate health insurance and the most common emerging destinations for healthcare tourism in the world are Thailand, Singapore, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia and India. This is mainly because of fact that the costs of availing high quality healthcare services in these countries are much cheaper- on an average around 80%. For example, a cardiac surgery, which will cost more than US$ 50,000 in the US, can be availed for US$ 20,000 in Singapore, US$ 12,000 in Thailand and between US$ 3,000 and US$ 10,000 in India.

Other factors influencing Healthcare Tourism, particularly in India, besides significant cost advantages, are:

High quality treatment and hospital stay with world class medical technological support
Rigid compliance with international treatment standards
No language barrier with the western world
Government taking active steps and interest in the medical tourism sector

In all these four areas significant advantages that India offers will need to be adequately leveraged in a sustainable manner by the country.

Most popular treatment areas:

The most popular treatment areas are as follows:

Alternative medicines
IVF treatment
Bone-marrow transplant
Cardiac bypass
Eye surgery
Dental care
Cosmetic surgery
Other areas of advanced medicine

Evolving scenario:

Since last several years healthcare tourism is fast evolving as one of the key growth drivers of the global healthcare sector as a whole.

Dr. Fred Hansen in his article titled, ‘A Revolution in Healthcare’, highlighted that increasing number of high-quality healthcare facilities in the developing countries are attracting medical tourists from the developed countries like the US and the European Union (EU).

Apprehension in the US about growing Healthcare Tourism of India:

India Knowledge@Wharton in its June 2, 2011 issue reported as under:

In the past, US President Barack Obama had singled out India for what he sees as the country usurping American jobs and business.
In May 2009, he removed some tax incentives for US companies who allegedly preferred to outsource rather than create domestic jobs. “Buffalo before Bangalore” was his rallying call at the time.
In April 2011, he told a town hall gathering in Virginia that Americans shouldn’t have to go to India or Mexico for “cheap” health care. “I would like you to get it right here in the U.S.,” he said.
In January 2012, President Obama reiterated the same intent in the run up to the forthcoming US presidential election for his second term.

The Global Market:

In 2006 the global market for healthcare tourism was around US$ 60 billion. According to McKinsey & Company, this market is expected to expand to over US$110 billion by 2012.

India – a contender for supremacy:

Healthcare tourism in India, despite being smaller compared to the western world, is surging ahead both at the national and the regional levels with enormous potential for future growth, if explored appropriately with a carefully charted strategic game plan in its evolution process.

Currently India is emerging as one of the preferred destinations for global health tourists. The country received 150,000 medical tourists in 2004, which grew by 33% to 200,000 in 2008, mainly from the USA, UK and the Gulf countries, primarily due to low-priced and high quality healthcare in wide ranging disease areas. More and more people from these countries are finding the prospect of high quality and value added medical care in India financially attractive. As per estimates, India will receive over 500,000 medical tourists per year come 2015.

While visiting India for healthcare, patients not only get treated by the best medical professionals with western medical training, but also are able to stay in deluxe accommodations fully equipped with the latest television set, refrigerator and in some cases even a personal computer, without facing any language barrier and that too by paying just around 1/10th of the price charged in the developed nations.

Moreover, according to John Lancaster of ‘The Washington Post’ (October 21, 2004) Indian private hospitals have a better mortality rate for heart surgery than American hospitals.

With over 8,500 beds ‘Apollo Hospitals’ chain runs 53 different hospitals across the country, followed by “Max Healthcare” that runs 8 medical centers in the National Capital Region (NCR) in India.

Indian Market:

Economic Times, in its January 6, 2009 edition reported, “Indian medical tourism to touch Rs 9,500 Crore (around US $ 2.1 billion) by 2015”. Another report titled “Booming Medical Tourism in India”, published in December 2010 estimated that the medical tourism industry will generate revenues of around US$ 3 billion by 2013, though with a market share of just around 3% of the of global healthcare tourism industry. Thus, in healthcare tourism, India still remains a smaller player with enormous growth potential.

New job creation:

Both Public and private sector studies estimate that healthcare tourism in India could attract around US$ 3 billion to the country by 2013 with around 40 million direct and indirect job opportunities.

Cost advantage in India:

Cost Comparison: India vs UK:

Nature of Treatment	Treatment Approximate Cost in India ($) *	Cost in other Major Healthcare Destination ($) *	Approximate Waiting Periods in USA / UK (in months)
Open heart Surgery	4,500	> 18,000	9 – 11
Cranio-facial Surgery and skull base	4,300	> 13,000	6 – 8
Neuro-surgery with Hypothermia	6,500	> 21,000	12 – 14
Complex spine surgery with implants	4,300	> 13,000	9 – 11
Simple Spine surgery	2,100	> 6,500	9 – 11
Simple Brain Tumor -Biopsy -Surgery	1,000 4,300	> 4,300 > 10,000	6 – 8
Parkinson -Lesion -DBS	2,100 17,000	> 6,500 > 26,000	9 – 11
Hip Replacement	4,300	> 13,000	9 – 11

* These costs are an average and may not be the actual cost to be incurred.

(Source: Health Line)

The key components:

The following four basic components constitute the healthcare tourism industry: • Healthcare Providers: Hospitals, mainly corporate hospitals and doctors • Payers: Medical/ Health insurance companies • Pharmaceutical Companies: for high quality affordable medicines • IT Companies: operating in the healthcare space

Growth drivers and barriers:

Following are the key growth drivers:

Government support through policies and initiatives
High quality, yet low cost care
Much less or no waiting time
World class private healthcare infrastructure
Rich source of natural and traditional medicines. Ministry of Tourism is promoting the traditional systems of medicines, like, Ayurveda, Siddha, and Yoga to project India as a the destination of choice for spiritual wellness and healing

In future, the world class and low cost private sector healthcare services are expected to drive the growth of the medical tourism in India.

However, any shortages in the talent pool and inadequacy in other basic infrastructural support like roads, airports and power could pose to be barriers to growth of this sector, if not addressed immediately.

Government Assistance:

The government of India is now supporting the hospitals to get the Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation.

In 2009 the government announced a revised guidelines for ‘Marketing Development Assistance (MDA)’ scheme for approved Medical Tourism service providers like, representatives of hospitals accredited by Joint Commission for International Accredited Hospitals (JCI) and National Accreditation Board of Hospitals (NABH) and Medical Tourism facilitators (Travel Agents/Tour Operators approved by Ministry of Tourism, Government of India and engaged in Medical Tourism (MTSP) and to the approved Wellness Centers i.e. representatives of the Wellness Centers accredited by the State Governments.

All these measures are expected to accelerate the growth of healthcare Tourism industry in India.

List of JCI Accredited Hospitals in India:

Following are the JCI Accredited Hospitals in India till 2007:

	Name and Place	Accredited on
1.	Indraprasta Apollo Hospital, New Delhi	June 18, 2005
2.	Wockhardt Hospital, Mumbai	August 25, 2005
3.	Apollo Hospitals, Chennai	January 29, 2006Disease- or Condition-Specific Care (DCSC)Certification for Acute Stroke: 29 April 2006
4.	Shroff Eye Hospital, Mumbai	February 18, 2006
5.	Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad	April 28, 2006
6.	Asian Heart Institute, Mumbai	October 20, 2006
7.	Satguru Pratap Singh Apollo Hospital, Punjab	February 3, 2007
8.	Fortis Hospital, Mohali	June 15, 2007

Source: Joint Commission International, 2007

The challenges:

Following are the key challenges that India will need to address to emerge as a healthcare tourism hub of the world:

Improving the infrastructure
Adequate training of the staff
Enhancement of the image of India as a corruption-free country
Continuous improvement of overall service to the patients

Conclusion:

While encountering the global economic meltdown many corporate business houses, even in the developed nations of the world, are under a serious cost containment pressure, which includes medical expenses for their employees. Such cost pressure has already started prompting many companies to send their employees to low cost destinations for treatment, without compromising on the quality of their healthcare needs. This trend could offer an additional growth opportunity in the healthcare tourism sector in India.

According to the ‘Medical Tourism Climate Survey 2010’ report, the leading medical tourism destinations are currently India, Thailand, Hungary and Malaysia and the leading source of patients being again the USA, UK and Russian Federation.

The survey rates Thailand, India and Singapore as the best in terms of quality of overall patients’ care. Insurance and liability issues for the patients from some major markets of the world could pose to be a challenge for speedy growth of this industry.

Countries like, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, located in quite closer proximity to India, will continue to offer a tough competition in the healthcare tourism space of the country.

In an increasingly heated-up fast evolving competitive scenario, the name of the game for India will be to ‘step on the gas’, sooner and effectively.

By: Tapan J Ray

Encourage vaccine research and improve its access to demonstrate ‘prevention is better than cure’

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions, which help preventing over 2 million deaths every year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccines as:

“A vaccine is any preparation intended to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies. Vaccines include, for example, suspensions of killed or attenuated microorganisms, or products or derivatives of microorganisms. The most common method of administering vaccines is by injection, but some are given by mouth or nasal spray.”

Types of Vaccines:

As per the ‘National Institute of Health (NIH)’ of USA, following are some types of vaccines that researchers usually work on:

Live, attenuated vaccines
Inactivated vaccines
Subunit vaccines
Toxoid vaccines
Conjugate vaccines
DNA vaccines
Recombinant vector vaccines

The first vaccine:

In 1796, Edward Anthony Jenner not only discovered the process of vaccination, alongside developed the first vaccine of the world for mankind – smallpox vaccine. To develop this vaccine Jenner acted upon the observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox.

As per published data prior to his discovery the mortality rate for smallpox was as high as up to 35%. Thus, Jenner is very often referred to as the “Father of Immunology”, whose pioneering work has “saved more lives than the work of any other person.”

Later on in 1901 Emil Von Behring received the first Nobel Prize (ever) for discovering Diphtheria serum therapy.

The future scope of vaccines:

The future scope of vaccines is immense as several potentially preventable diseases, as indicated below remain still unaddressed.

	Examples of effective Vaccines	Examples of Potentially VaccineTreatable Diseases
Bacterial	Diphtheria Haemophilus influenza type B Meningitis A, C Pneumococcus	Enterococcus Meningitis B, W, Y Group A Streptococcus Staphylococcus
Viral	Varicella Hepatitis B and C Influenza Polio	Pandemic influenza RSV West Nile Virus Epstein Barr Virus
Other		Cancer Alzheimer’s disease Substance abuse Autoimmune disorders

Source: Deutsche Bank Report

Expanded focus for vaccines:

The focus of the global vaccine industry also has been expanded from prophylactic vaccination for communicable disease (e.g. DTP vaccine) to therapeutic vaccines (e.g. Anti-cancer vaccines) and then possibly non-communicable disease vaccines (e.g. vaccines for coronary artery disease).

The Issues and Challenges:

To produce a safe and effective marketable vaccine, it takes reportedly around 12 to 15 years of painstaking research and development process involving an investment ranging between US $500 million and over $1 billion dollars (Ibid, 7).

Moreover, one will need to realize that the actual cost of vaccines will always go much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for mass-scale production of vaccines and then for the distribution of the same mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60% of the production costs for vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable.

Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Thus, the long lead time required for the ‘mind to market’ process for vaccine development together with high cost involved in their clinical trials/marketing approval process, special bulk/institutional purchase price and limited demand through retail outlets, restrict the research and development initiatives for vaccines, unlike many other pharmaceutical products.

Besides, even the newer vaccines will be required mostly for the diseases of the poor, like Malaria, Tuberculosis, HIV and ‘Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’ in the developing countries, which may not necessarily guarantee a decent return on investments for vaccines, unlike many other newer drugs. As a result, the key issue for developing a right type of newer vaccine will continue to be a matter of pure economics.

A great initiative called GAVI:

Around 23 million children of the developing countries are still denied of important and life-saving vaccines, which otherwise come rather easily to the children of the developed nations of the world.

To resolve this inequity in January 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) was formed. This initiative was mainly aimed at generating sufficient fund to ensure availability of vaccines for children living in the 70 poorest countries of the world.

The GAVI Alliance has been instrumental in improving access to six common infant vaccines, including those for hepatitis B and yellow fever. GAVI is also working to introduce pneumococcal, rotavirus, human papilloma virus, meningococcal, rubella and typhoid vaccines in not too distant future.

A recent example:

As if to vindicate the above points, Reuters on December 16, 2011 reported that “Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are increasing sales of cut-price pneumonia vaccine to developing countries by more than 50 percent, marking the scale-up of an international program to protect millions of children.

GAVI is buying an additional 180 million doses of Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine Prevenar 13 and a similar quantity of GSK’s Synflorix at a deeply discounted price of US $3.50 a shot.”

Success with vaccines in disease prevention:

Diphtheria incidence in the US – Mortality 5/10,000 cases	Peak Incidence (1921)	Incidence today
	2,06,939	1

Tetanus incidence in the US – Mortality 3/10 cases	Peak Incidence (1927)	Incidence today
Tetanus incidence in the US – Mortality 3/10 cases	1,314	40

H. Influenza type B incidence in the US – Mortality 2-3/100 cases	Peak Incidence (1927)	Incidence today
	20,000	363

Source: Ehreth Vaccine 21:4105-4117

Development of vaccines through the passage of time:

No. of vaccines	Year	Vaccines
1.	1780-1800	Smallpox (first vaccine for any disease)
2.	1860-1880	Cholera
	1880-1900	Rabies
6.		Tetanus
		Typhoid fever
		Bubonic plague
11	1920-1940	Diphtheria
		Pertussis
		Tuberculosis
		Yellow fever
		Typhus
16	1940-1960	Influenza
		Polio
		Japanese encephalitis
		Anthrax
		Adenovirus-4 and 7
24	1960-1980	Oral polio
		Measles
		Mumps
		Rubella
		Chicken pox
		Pneumonia
		Meningitis
		Hepatitis B
28	1980-2000	Haemophilus influenzae type b
		Hepatitis A
		Lyme disease
		Rotavirus
29	2000-2010	Human papilloma virus

Current trend in vaccine development:

Malarial Vaccine:

Reuters on December 20, 2011 reported that an experimental malaria vaccine has been developed by the British scientists, which has the potential to neutralize all strains of the most deadly species of malaria parasite.

In October 2011, the data published for a large clinical trial conducted in Africa by GlaxoSmithKline on their experimental malaria vaccine revealed that the risk of children getting malaria had halved with this vaccine. Reuters also reported that other teams of researchers around the world are now working on different approaches to develop a malaria vaccine.

Tuberculosis vaccines:

On August 11, 2011, Aeras and the Oxford-Emergent Tuberculosis Consortium (OETC) announced with a ‘Press Release’ the commencement of a Phase IIb ‘proof-of-concept efficacy trial’ of a new investigational tuberculosis (TB) vaccine. OETC indicated that clinical trial for the drug will be undertaken by them in Senegal and South Africa with primary funding support from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP).

Cancer vaccines:

Cancer vaccines are, in fact, biological response modifiers, which work by stimulating or restoring the ability of the immune system to fight the disease. There are two broad types of cancer vaccines:

Preventive vaccines: To prevent cancer in healthy people
Therapeutic vaccines: To treat cancer by strengthening the natural defense mechanism of the human body against the disease.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) has approved the following cancer vaccines, which protect against two types of HPV that cause approximately 70% of all cases of cervical cancer globally:

Gardasil of Merck & Company
Cervarix of GlaxoSmithKline

The US FDA has also approved a cancer preventive vaccine that protects against HBV infection, which can cause liver cancer. It has been reported that the original HBV vaccine was approved in 1981 and currently most children in the US are vaccinated against HBV after their birth.

In addition, the US regulator has also approved a cancer vaccine for treatment of certain types of metastatic prostate cancer.

HIV Vaccines:

‘The AIDS Vaccine 2011 conference’ held in Bangkok in the month of September, 2011 discussed some of the latest findings on the following two vaccines for prevention and control of HIV disease progression:

A large trial of RV 144 vaccine in Thailand demonstrated the proof of concept that a preventive vaccine with a risk reduction of 31% could effectively work. The trial was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS.
Bionor Pharma announced that clinical trial participants who received Vacc-4x “experienced a 70% viral load decrease relative to their level before starting Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART), compared with no notable reduction among placebo recipients.”

Promising ‘Therapeutic Vaccines’ undergoing clinical trial:

‘FierceVaccines’ in its October 27, 2011 reported the following 10 most promising therapeutic vaccines, which are now undergoing clinical trials on humans:

Molecule	Company	Indication
ICT-107	ImmunoCellular Therapeutics	Glioblastoma
VGX-3100	Inovio Pharmaceuticals	Cervical cancer
MAGE-A3	GlaxoSmithKline	Skin, lung cancer
Neu-Vax	RXi Pharmaceuticals	Breast cancer
AE37	Antigen Express	Breast cancer
NexVax2	ImmusanT	Celiac disease
ADXS-HPV	Advaxis	Cervical, head and neck cancer
CRS-207	Aduro BioTech	Pancreatic cancer
PEV7	Pevion Biotech	Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis
GI-4000	GlobeImmune	Pancreatic cancer

Future scope for cancer vaccines:

One school of scientists firmly believes that out of all cancers diagnosed each year globally, various types of microbes contribute 15% to 25% as a causative factor for this dreaded disease, as indicated below:

Infectious Agents	Type of Organism	Associated Cancers
Hepatitis B virus (HBV)	Virus		Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Hepatitis C virus (HCV)	Virus		Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16 and 18, as well as other HPV types	Virus		Cervical cancer; vaginal cancer;vulvar cancer; oropharyngeal cancer(cancers of the base of the tongue, tonsils, or upper throat); anal cancer; penile cancer; squamous cell carcinoma of the skin
Epstein-Barr virus	Virus		Cancer of the upper part ofthe throat behind the nose
Human herpes virus 8 (HHV8)	Virus		Kaposi sarcoma
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus	Virus		Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma
Helicobacter pylori	Bacterium		Stomach cancer
Schistosomes	Parasite		Bladder cancer
Liver flukes	Parasite		Cholangio carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)

Source: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

These findings open the doors of unique opportunities to develop both preventive and therapeutic vaccines to address the life threatening near fatal ailment of mankind – cancer.

Conclusion:

Developing countries of the world are now demanding more of those vaccines, which no longer feature in the immunization schedules of the developed nations. Thus to supply these vaccines at low cost will be a challenge, especially for the global vaccine manufacturers, unless the low margins get well compensated by high institutional demand.

To effectively focus on all important disease prevention initiatives, there is also a need to build a vibrant vaccine business sector in India. To achieve these dual objectives the government should create an enabling ecosystem for the vaccine manufacturers, academics and the government funded vaccine R&D centers to concentrate more with the relevant vaccine development projects ensuring a decent return on investments, for long term public health interest.

More often than not, the above stakeholders find it difficult to deploy sufficient fund to take their vaccine projects successfully through various stages of clinical development to obtain marketing approval from the drug regulator, working out a decent return on investments. This critical issue needs to be appropriately and urgently addressed by the Government to make the disease prevention initiatives in the country sustainable, demonstrating to all concerned that disease ‘prevention is better than cure’.

By: Tapan J Ray

Infections may cause NCDs like, diabetes and cancer: Ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Tapan Ray

To create a positive health impact on the lives of billions of people, the United Nations (UN) on September 19, 2011 unanimously adopted a ‘Political Declaration’ on ‘Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’. In the years ahead, this path-breaking initiative on NCDs, with global commitment, is expected to make a huge difference in the lives of many, across the world.

NCDs have now been identified as a key healthcare challenge of this century and include ailments like, cardiovascular, chronic pulmonary diseases, diabetes, arthritis and cancer. In the developing countries, over 80% of all deaths are related to NCDs.

There are times when NCDs raise issues related to social justice and human rights. For example, in a country like India where out of pocket expenses towards healthcare is around 80%, a major illness like cancer even in a middle income group family, can drive the entire household to huge socioeconomic hardship.

NCDs are preventable:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), adequate physical activity, healthy diet/nutrition and tobacco avoidance can prevent:

80% of premature heart disease
80% of type II diabetes
40% of cancers

Currently, as we shall see below, immunization is also being considered as a preventive therapy for certain types of NCDs.

NCDs may be of infectious origin:

Dr. Bennett Lorber in his article titled, ‘Are All Diseases Infectious?’, published in the ‘Annals of Internal medicine’ wrote that many common NCDs like, cardiovascular, diabetes, peptic ulcer, arthritis and even certain types of cancer originate from infections by micro-organisms.

Mainly because of this reason and its consequent adverse socioeconomic impact, the low and middle income countries of the world will require controlling many types of infections, possibly through immunization, before they ultimately develop into NCDs. Such measures, in turn, will help them reducing the risk factors of morbidity and mortality related to NCDs.

Infections and NCDs:

As indicated above by Dr. Bennett Lorber, following are some examples of reported relationship between infection and NCDs:

Reactive Arthritis:

Reactive arthritis or spondyloarthropathy has been known to follow intestinal infection with Salmonella typhimurium and Yersinia enterocolitica or urethral infection with Chlamydia trachomatis.

Scientists from the United Kingdom have already announced that they will soon begin human trial of an experimental rheumatoid arthritis vaccine.

Peptic Ulcer and Gastric Carcinoma:

Helicobacter pylori is known to cause of gastritis and peptic ulcer disease and is an important risk factor for gastric carcinoma.

Researchers at Rhode Island Hospital in collaboration with the University of Rhode Island and EpiVax Inc, have identified a potential vaccine to reduce colonization of Helicobacter pylori, which is known to cause peptic ulcer and gastric carcinoma.

Acute Renal Failure:

It was reported that about 10% of infected persons younger than 10 years of age develop hemolytic uremic syndrome, and as many as 75% of cases of the syndrome in the United States are complications of intestinal infection with E. coli.

Vasculitis:

The most common cause of vascular damage in secondary vasculitis is now considered to be related to different types of microorganisms. Patients were reported to have developed polyarteritis nodosa a few months after having hepatitis B infection.

It is widely reported that in the developed countries most common vasculitis is related to hepatitis B and C. However, in the developing world HIV related vasculitis appears to be common.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBS)/ Crohn’s Disease:

The precise etiology of Crohn’s Disease though remains to be conclusively deciphered, it is believed by many researchers that the disease develops due to a reaction to a persistent intestinal infection in vascular endothelial cells.

Diabetes:

A good number of experts support a link between infection with enteroviruses in the pancreata and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

To arrest or slow the autoimmune response that destroys insulin-producing cells in diabetes, it has been reported that the Diamyd vaccine, now in Phase III clinical trial in both USA and Europe, has shown very promising results.

Coronary Artery Disease:

A study published in the journal of ‘Clinical Infectious Disease’, Volume 40, Issue 8 ‘demonstrates a significant association between high titers to C. pneumoniae IgG and IgA and acute Myocardial Infarction (MI) in a cohort of young men and suggests that recent or chronic active infections could be associated with an increased risk for MI.’

In other studies also, patients with acute myocardial infarction were found to have elevated serum antibody levels to Chlamydia pneumoniae. This opens up possibility of preventing heart attacks with a vaccine.

Cancer:

The US FDA has already approved two types of vaccines for cancer prevention:

Vaccines against the hepatitis B virus, which can cause liver cancer.
Vaccines against human papillomavirus, which are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancers.

In addition, US FDA has also approved another cancer vaccine for metastatic prostate cancer.

A type of cancer known as Kaposi sarcoma is linked to an infectious agent found in patients with acquired immune-deficiency syndrome. Scientists are in the process of developing treatment vaccines against many types of cancer.

Conclusions:

In the field of NCD, a not so widely publicized scientific revolution is in the making. Many well researched findings have, to a great extent, established that infectious agents could be the causative/precipitative or risk factors for NCDs like, chronic pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and cancer.

The moot question raised by Dr. Bennett Lorber earlier: ‘Are all diseases infectious?’, is gradually getting answered through intensive scientific research. Otherwise, who would have thought, until recently, that vaccines could be developed for diabetes, certain types of cancer or even peptic ulcer?

Such path breaking scientific research findings are, in turn, creating a hope and opportunity for disease prevention through immunization for many NCDs, especially for the developing nations of the world.

It is very heartening to know that United Nations (UN) have taken note of these revolutionary developments in the ‘Non Communicable Disease’ space and are deliberating on the effective ways to combat NCDs caused by infections with the development and use of appropriate vaccines.

The entire world eagerly awaits more actionable outcome of the ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery related to many more NCDs to ensure better health of mankind of the Planet Earth.

By: Tapan J Ray

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on December 19, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Over a period of time, the trend of a disease treatment process is becoming more targeted and personalized to improve effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment. Biotechnology being the key driver to this trend, India should not fall out of line from this direction.

There are two clear opportunities for India in this fast evolving arena. One is to get more engaged in the discovery research of new large molecular entity and the other is to make a successful foray in the fast emerging and relatively high value biosimilar drugs (generic versions of biotechnology medicines) markets of the world.

In my view, India has greater probability of success in the field of biosimilar drugs, which could catapult India as a major force to reckon with in the fast growing biotechnology space of the global pharmaceutical industry.

An interesting global collaboration:

On October 19, 2010, the home grown Biotech Company Biocon with its headquarter in the Information Technology (IT) heartland of India – Bangalore created a stir in the Industry by inking an interesting international business deal with the largest global pharmaceutical company – Pfizer.

With this deal of US $350 million Biocon initiated its foray into the global biosimilar market by enabling Pfizer to globally commercialize Biocon’s biosimilar human recombinant insulin and three insulin analogues.

Before this deal, Sanofi-Pasteur, the’ vaccine business unit’ of the global major Sanofi of France had acquired Shantha Biotechnics, located in Hyderabad for a consideration of US$ 602 million, in July 2009.

Global players signal a new aspiration:

Just a year before the above acquisition in India, on December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that just two days after Merck announced a major push into biosimilar medicines, Eli Lilly signaled similar aspirations. This report, at that time, raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, as it was in the midst of a raging scientific debate on the appropriate regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs globally.

Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era in the pharmaceutical sector of the world, not just for the pharmaceutical players, but also for the patients with the availability of affordable lower priced biologic medicines.

The scenario is heating up with regulatory hurdles relatively easing off:

Within the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs is now being charted out by the US FDA. However, as of November 2011, they do not seem to have finalized the details of the process.

It is worth mentioning that during the same reform process a 12 year data exclusivity period has been granted for biosimilar drugs, against the 5-year period of the same granted to the innovators of small molecule chemical drugs.

In the recent past, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

The trigger factor:

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the USA, at that time, was yet to approve the regulatory pathway for biosimilar medicines.

What then are the trigger factors for the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing costs of global R&D initiatives, cost containment pressures from the payers or relatively strong market entry barrier for smaller players? I reckon, all of these.

Low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs:

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of such biologics could not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to heat up and develop at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles (ban) for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US , as mentioned above, will be the key growth driver.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company	Location	Biosimilar mAbs	Development Status
BioXpress	Switzerland	16	Preclinical
Gene Techno Science	Japan	6	Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla	India	5	Preclinical
PlantForm	Canada	3	Preclinical
BioCad	Russia	3	Preclinical
Celltrion	South Korea	2	Phase 3
LG Life Sciences	South Korea	2	Preclinical
Gedeon Richter	Hungary	2	Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma	Switzerland	1	Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical	South Korea	1	Preclinical
PharmaPraxis	Brazil	1	Preclinical
Probiomed	Mexico	1	Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics	South Korea	1	Preclinical
Novartis	Switzerland	1	Phase 2
Teva	Israel	1	Phase 2
Zenotech	India	1	Phase 3
Spectrum	US	1	Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan	India/US	1	Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Global Market Potential:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
Cost containment measures of various governments
Aging population
Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
Recent establishment of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US

On the other hand, according to Alan Shepard, principal of Thought Leadership, Global Generics at IMS Health: ‘Forecasting biosimilar sales is complex because of various factors including the imprecise classification of a biosimilar and pricing policies of the originator resulting in the use of the brand in place of the biosimilar. Some estimates show the market growing from US$ 66 million in 2008 to US$ 2.3 billion in 2015. Others see sales exceeding US$ 5.6 billion in 2013. Whatever the forecast, there remains a US$ 50 billion potential for biosimilars’.

Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category. By 2013, about 10 more patented biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent, throwing open even greater opportunity for the growth of biosimilar drugs globally.

The scenario and business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011). The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) etc.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players are making rapid strides:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2011 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested Rs 300 crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by end 2012.

In June this year another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which is expected to be launched in India again by 2012.

Oncology is becoming the research hot-spot:

As indicated above, many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by the end of this year growing over 17%.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology. With the R&D focus of the deep-pocket global pharmaceutical majors’ on this particular therapy area, the trend will continue to go north.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched globally by 2015.

Current market size of Oncology drugs in India is estimated to be around Rs.1,300 Crore (US$ 260 million) and is expected to double by 2014.

Greater potential for global collaborative initiatives:

It is envisaged that the recent Pfizer – Biocon deal will trigger many other collaborative initiatives between the global and the local pharmaceutical companies.

Among Indian biotech companies, Reliance Life Sciences has already marketed Recombinant Erythropoietin, Recombinant Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Recombinant Interferon Alpha and Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and has been reported to have the richest pipeline of biosimilar drugs in India.

Companies like Wockhardt, Lupin, DRL and Intas Biopharmaceuticals are also in the process of developing an interesting portfolio of biosimilar drugs to fully encash the fast growing global opportunities.

‘Patent Cliff’ is hastening the process:

Many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, after having encountered the ‘patent cliff’, are now looking at the small molecule generic and large molecule biosimilar businesses, in a mega scale, especially in the emerging markets of the world like India.

The country has witnessed major acquisitions like, Ranbaxy, Shantha Biotechnics and Piramal Healthcare by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Sanofi of France and Abbott of USA, respectively. We have also seen collaborative initiatives of large global companies like, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer with Indian companies like DRL, Aurobindo, Claris, Torrent, Zydus Cadila, Strides Arcolab, Sun Pharma and now Biocon to reach out to the fast growing global generic and biosimilar drugs markets.

This trend further gained momentum when immediately after Biocon deal, Pfizer strengthened its footprints in the global generics market with yet another acquisition of 40% stake in Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro of Brazil with US$ 240 million to develop and globally commercialize their generic portfolio.

Emergence of ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs and higher market entry barrier:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products Pegasys and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

The barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, by and large, much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

Government support in India:

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared regulatory guidelines for biosimilar Drugs, which are expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety standards.

Currently, a number both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

However, many industry experts feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there being only a few ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Conclusion:

Recent international deal of Pfizer and Biocon to globally commercialize Biocon’s four biosimilar insulin and analogues developed in India, does signal a new global status for the Indian biosimilar drugs to the international pharma majors, who were vocal critics of such drugs developed in India, until recently.

Health being a basic human right, the proposal for ‘Universal Health Coverage’ augurs well for India

Posted on December 12, 2011 by Tapan Ray

“The right to health is relevant to all States: every State has ratified at least one international human rights treaty recognizing the right to health. Moreover, States have committed themselves to protecting this right through international declarations, domestic legislation and policies, and at international conferences.”

- The Factsheet, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the WHO

Universal Health Coverage or Universal Healthcare:

In this context, “Universal Health Coverage (UHC)” is a healthcare system where all citizens of a country are covered for the basic healthcare services. In many countries UHC is also known as “Universal Healthcare” and may have different system types as follows:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance to all citizens.

Two-Tier: The government provides basic insurance coverage to citizens and allows purchase of additional voluntary insurance whenever a citizen wants to.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that insurance must be bought by all its citizens, like what happened in the USA in 2010.

Global scenario for UHC:

As per published reports, all 33 developed nations have UHC in place. The United States was the only exception until recently, till President Barack Obama administration implemented the ‘path breaking’ new healthcare reform policy in the country in 2010 against tough political opposition.

The new healthcare reform measures in the US had raised a storm within the local pharmaceutical industry, as well, at that time for various reasons.

The countries providing UHC:

Based on an article titled, ‘ Analyzing our economy, government policy and society through the lens of cost-benefit’ published in ‘True Cost’ following is the list of the countries where UHC is currently in place:

Country	Start Date of Universal Health Care	System Type

Norway	1912	Single Payer
New Zealand	1938	Two Tier
Japan	1938	Single Payer
Germany	1941	Insurance Mandate
Belgium	1945	Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom	1948	Single Payer
Kuwait	1950	Single Payer
Sweden	1955	Single Payer
Bahrain	1957	Single Payer
Brunei	1958	Single Payer
Canada	1966	Single Payer
Netherlands	1966	Two-Tier
Austria	1967	Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates	1971	Single Payer
Finland	1972	Single Payer
Slovenia	1972	Single Payer
Denmark	1973	Two-Tier
Luxembourg	1973	Insurance Mandate
France	1974	Two-Tier
Australia	1975	Two Tier
Ireland	1977	Two-Tier
Italy	1978	Single Payer
Portugal	1979	Single Payer
Cyprus	1980	Single Payer
Greece	1983	Insurance Mandate
Spain	1986	Single Payer
South Korea	1988	Insurance Mandate
Iceland	1990	Single Payer
Hong Kong	1993	Two-Tier
Singapore	1993	Two-Tier
Switzerland	1994	Insurance Mandate
Israel	1995	Two-Tier
United States	2010	Insurance Mandate

Highest per capita health spending has no relevance to the quality of health services/ outcome, but early implementation of UHC has:

The following table shows, although per capita spending on health is the highest in the US, the number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per 10,000 population are highest in Cuba, UK and Japan, respectively. Japan also records the highest life expectancy at birth.Thus it appears, by and large, those countries which have an efficient UHC scheme running since quite some time from now are doing better in the health parameters as indicated below, especially, as compared to the US with the highest per capita health spending.
Country	Per capita spending on health (US $)	Doctors/ 10,000 pop	Nurses and midwives/ 10,000 pop	Hospital beds/10,000 pop	Life expectancy at birth
USA	6719**	26	94	31	78
UK	2815	23	128**	39	80
Russia	698	43	85	97	66
Japan	2581	21	95	140**	83**
Italy	2631	37	72	39	82
Germany	3465	34	80	83	80
France	3420	34	80	73	81
Cuba	674	59**	74	49	78
China	216	14	10	22	74
Canada	3673	19	101	34	81

** Highest

Source: The Guardian, Data Blog, Facts are Sacred)

The current situation in India:

In October 2010, the Planning Commission of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the chairmanship of the well-known medical professional Prof. K. Srinath Reddy. The HLEG was mandated to develop ‘a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians’.

The HLEG Report starts with:

“This report is dedicated to the people of India whose health is our most precious asset and whose care is our most sacred duty.”

The HLEG defined UHC for India as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality ( promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

Ten principles for UHC in India:

Following are the ‘Ten Principles’, which guided the HLEG for the formulation of the recommendations for the UHC in India:

Universality
Equity
Non-exclusion and non-discrimination
Comprehensive care that is rational and of good quality
Financial protection
Protection of patients’ rights that guarantee appropriateness of care, patient choice, portability and continuity of care
Consolidated and strengthened public health provisioning
Accountability and transparency
Community participation
Putting health in people’s hands

UHC guarantees access to essential free health services for all:

Because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learned from within India as well as other developed and developing countries of the world.

UHC will ensure guaranteed access to essential health services for every citizen of India, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

Under UHC all citizens of India will be free to choose between Public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services.

It is envisaged that people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes

HLEG recommends ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’, just like draft NPPP 2011:

In its recommendation no. 3.5.1, HLEG postulated price controls and price regulation especially on essential drugs, which is quite in line with the draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011). The HLEG report says:

“We recommend the use of ‘essentiality’ as a criterion and applying price controls on formulations rather than basic drugs. Direct price control applied to formulations, rather than basic drugs, is likely to minimize intra-industry distortion in transactions and prevent a substantial rise in drug prices. It may also be necessary to consider caps on trade margins to rein in drug prices while ensuring reasonable returns to manufacturers and distributors. All therapeutic products should be covered and producers should be prevented from circumventing controls by creating nonstandard combinations. This would also discourage producers from moving away from controlled to non-controlled drugs. At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen Central and State regulatory agencies to effectively perform quality and price control functions.”

Price control on essential medicines is also in force in China:

Chinese Government has put a cap on the prices of about 300 drugs featuring in their ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM).’ Perhaps following the similar concept both the NLEG and NPPP 2011 have recommended price control of about 348 drugs falling under ‘The National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’ of India.

Another recent report on ‘Free Medicines for All’:

Meanwhile,the working group of the Planning Commission on health, constituted for the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) headed by the Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Mr. K. Chandramouli (now retired), has also submitted its report recently.

The Part II of the report titled, “Provisions of ’free medicines for all in public health facilities … recommends that health being a state subject, all the state governments of the country should adopt the successful and well proven Tamil Nadu model of healthcare procurement.

Tamil Nadu government through Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation (TNMSC) reportedly makes bulk purchases of drugs and pharmaceuticals directly from the manufacturers through a transparent bidding process, which reduces the cost of medicines to 1/10th and even to 1/15th of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the respective product packs.

As per this report, the total running cost for the ‘Free Medicines for All’ project during the plan period would be Rs. 28,675 Crores and an additional allocation of Rs. 1293 Crores will be required as one‐time capital costs. The contribution of the Central Government at 85 % of the total cost would be around Rs 25667 crores for the entire Plan period.

Conclusion:

It was good to read that Ms. Nata Menabde, WHO country-head, India in her interview to ‘The Financial Express’ dated December 7, 2011 said, “We at WHO have been fortunate enough to be consulted on this (UHC). The meeting at planning commission was very productive and positive and we think the recommendations on the road map to Universal Health Coverage in the country is a step in the right direction.”

UHC, I reckon, will also be able to address simultaneously the critical issue of high ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenses by the common man of the country. Implemented sooner ignoring the motivated stalling tactics, if any, by the vested interests, could usher in an era of a new healthcare reform process in the country.

That said, the proposal of the UHC in its current form does have some ‘loose knots’,which should be appropriately tightened-up through informed public discourse by the stakeholders in the healthcare space of India, sooner.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Pharmaceuticals

Quantum Growth Envisaged in Government Procurement for Pharmaceuticals: A Challenging Ball Game for Pharma Players

The Vaccine Market of India: A rejuvenation is in progress

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

Healthcare Tourism: India needs to step on the gas

Encourage vaccine research and improve its access to demonstrate ‘prevention is better than cure’

Types of Vaccines:

Infections may cause NCDs like, diabetes and cancer: Ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Health being a basic human right, the proposal for ‘Universal Health Coverage’ augurs well for India