Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Posted on December 5, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The global pharmaceutical industry is now navigating its way through very cautiously while negotiating an unprecedented ‘patent cliff’, simultaneously with gradually drying-up R&D pipelines. This unique situation has triggered off several global mega Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) not only involving better protected biologic drugs business, but also in the large generic space mostly in the emerging markets of the world, which used to be ignored by many before the turn of the new century.

Patent Expiry in next 12 months:

According to an article published in the ‘FiercePharma’ dated October 24, 2011 titled, ‘10 largest U.S patent losses’, over the next 12 months the following best-selling drugs, ranked not by US sales volume but by their weight in each company’s US revenue stream, will face patent expiry:

	Company	Brand
1	Forest Laboratories	Lexapro
2	Takeda Pharmaceuticals	Actos
3	Bristol-Myers Squibb	Plavix
4	AstraZeneca	Seroquel
5	Eli Lilly	Zyprexa
6	Pfizer	Lipitor*
7	Merck	Singulair
8	Novartis	Diovan
9	Teva Pharmaceuticals	Provigil
10	Abbott Laboratories	TriCor

* Patent expired on November 30, 2011

Opening a new vista of opportunity:

In the midst of such a critical situation within the global pharmaceutical industry, application of biotechnology in the drug discovery process opened up a new vista of a broad range of new class of therapies. These include monoclonal antibodies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines tissue growth factors, cell or gene therapies and vaccines, just to name a few.

A recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that 80% of the total biotech products, which are expected to be commercialized by 2030, will be medicines and medical diagnostics.

Old business model signals a diminishing return:

Over a period of decades, the business model of small-molecule based blockbuster drugs has successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

A shift in focus from ‘small molecules’ to ‘large molecules’:

Since last several years, the success of biologic drugs compared to conventional small-molecule chemical drugs, has been changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A.

As per published data, although the market capitalization of the top ten large pharmaceutical companies dropped more than US$ 700 billion since 2001, the same for the biotech companies, on the other hand, has gone up by more than 50% during this period. This trend signifies proliferation of biotech drugs in the years ahead for meeting unmet needs of the patients.

To keep pace with the biotech led growth of the global pharmaceutical industry, many companies have started imbibing biotech-like R&D structure within their respective organizations. For examples, the pharmaceutical majors GsK and Pfizer have already articulated the strategic intent to restructure their respective large monolithic R&D set-ups to smaller independent drug discovery units.

Such restructuring is expected to foster ‘can do’ spirit of the biotech entrepreneurs within the recreated smaller units of large R&D setups to accelerate overall R&D productivity for enrichment of the new product pipelines. However, future will be the best judge to evaluate the success of this experiment.

As if to vindicate this emerging scenario, on November 30, 2011 Bloomberg reported, “U.K.’s largest drug maker has broken up research into competitive teams and put scientists back at the center of the process. But freedom carries a price: researchers who don’t adapt must go. Scientists now ‘live or die with their project.’ This month, Glaxo (GsK) completed the first appraisal of its new model. The company is now deciding which teams deserve more funding and which ones don’t. The conclusions will probably be made public in February when Glaxo (GsK) reports full-year earnings.”

Biologic drugs offer greater promise to meet more unmet needs:

Unlike conventional chemical drugs, most genetically modified biologic drugs work with a very high degree of precision and accuracy on the cells of the diseased organ. Many clinical studies have amply demonstrated that such drugs not only ensure faster recovery, but also help saving incremental treatment cost because of their excellent safety profile.

As we see today, more and more of those global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales for R&D projects are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in the fast evolving market of biologic drugs mainly through M&A. This strategy well justifies their strategic intent to make good the loss of income from the blockbuster drugs going off-patent quite in tandem with their fast dwindling R&D pipeline, as it were.

The bottom-line impact of a successful well targeted new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, are expected to be huge.

Faster growth of biologic drugs:

Despite patent cliff, large molecule biologic drugs like Enbrel, Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira continue to contribute more than the small molecule drugs of chemical origin to overall growth of the large global pharmaceutical majors. Many of these drugs were sourced by them either through acquisitions or collaborative arrangements.

Cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules falling in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factor are becoming attractive acquisition targets of the small molecules dominated large pharmaceutical companies having deep pockets.

Global Market Scenario:

According to IMS Health, biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$ 120 billion during MAT March 2009

In 2010 Biologic drugs increased their turnover to US$ 140 billion in the total market of US$ 850 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 12 and eight in the top 20 best selling global brands. Remicade emerged as the highest-selling biologics in 2010, ahead of Enbrel. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies. (source: Knol 2010)

Major acquisitions from 2005-2011 for Biologic drugs:

The opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologic drugs, especially in high-growth therapy areas, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust in the recent times.

Following are the major acquisitions in the field of biologic drugs from 2005 to 2011:

Company	Target company	The deal: $billion	Products
Roche	Genentech	47	Rituxan, Avastin, Herceptin, MoAbs, Oncology
Sanofi Aventis	Genzyme	20	Orphan biologicsCerezyme, Fabrazyme, Renagel, Synvisc
AstraZeneca	MedImmune	15.6	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Serono	13.5	Biologics
Takeda	Millennium	8.8	Velcade, Oncology
Lilly	ImClone	6.0	Erbitux, Oncology
Novartis	Chiron	5.8	Vaccines
Teva	Cephalon	6.2	Nuvigil, Provigil, Treanda CNS, Oncology
Abraxis	American BioScience	4.2	Oncology
Astellas	OSI Pharma	4.0	Tarceva, oncology
Eisai	MGI Pharma	3.9	Aloxi, Salagen, Hexalen, Oncology
Celgene	Pharmion	2.9	Oncology
Celgene	Abraxis	2.9	Oncology
Gilead	Myogen	2.5	Biotechnology
BMS	Medarex	2.4	Monoclonal antibodies
J&J	Crucell	2.3	Vaccines
Amgen	Abgenix	2.2	Monoclonal antibodies
Boehringer Ingelheim	MacroGenics	2.1	Monoclonal antibodies
Gilead	CV Terapeutics	1.4	Cardiovascular
Genzyme	Osiris	1.4	Prochymal, Stem cells
GSK	ID Biomed	1.3	Biologics
AstraZeneca	Cambridge Antibody Technology	1.3	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Sirna	1.1	RNAi
Amgen	BioVex	1	OncoVex

(Source: Mergers and Acquisitions Review2005-2011 Pharma Biotech by Knol)

Why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space?

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
A higher percentage of biologic drugs have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A recent study:

In one of their recent collaborative studies published in an article titled, “Is R&D Earning its Investment?” Deloitte and Thomson Reuters (2009) have reported that the top 12 global pharma majors have 21% to 66% biologic drugs in their late stage product pipeline with the average being at 39%.

Another interesting trend:

Besides mega acquisitions, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory disease segments. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs. In November 2011, Gilead acquired ‘Pharmasset’ for US$ 11 billion to include in its product pipeline a future Hepatitis C drugs offering 95% cure rates.

Smaller biotech companies usually do not get engaged in very large deals unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and successful smaller deals more effectively.

Much less generic competition for biologic space:

After patent expiry of NCEs, innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion. This happens as the small molecules are relatively easier to replicate by the generic manufacturers. Moreover, the process of getting regulatory approval of NCEs is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biosimilar drugs involving difficult, complex and expensive processes for development with stringent regulatory requirements for getting their marketing approval in the developed markets of the world like the EU and the USA, offer significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after the patent expiry.

Mainly due to this reason, brands like the following are expected to go strong for some more time without any significant competition from the biosimilar drugs:

Brand	Company	Launch date
Rituxan	Roche/Biogen idec	1997
Herceptin	Roche	1998
Remicade	Centocor/J&J	1998
Enbrel	Amgen/Pfizer	1998

Smaller biotech companies to be the prime targets:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&A, will ultimately subside due to various compelling reasons. Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials, without wherewithal to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be the prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Cost of treatment:

Despite so many positives, high priced biologic drugs do raise a critical concern about the incremental load on already ballooning healthcare costs to the patients.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its September 29, 2010 issue highlighted that biologic drugs can cost as much as $1.5 million annually to the user. Similarly Forbes.com on April 12, 2009 reported, “Biologic drugs can cost up to 22 times more than traditional medications – some as much as $400,000 a year”.

This is indeed a very serious issue that needs to be resolved sooner. Speedy entry of biosimilar drugs will partly address this critical issue.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors have already started experimenting to work with the pure biotech companies in terms of M&A and strategic alliances, it will be interesting to watch the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ of the business models, organization/ work/employee culture and market outlook of these two different types of organizations while improving the global business performance of the overall entity, significantly.

Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged entities.

Be that as it may, despite serious cost concern, experts still believe that biologic drugs have all the potential to deliver the ‘magic bullets’ in the fight against many intractable diseases of mankind in not too distant future.

Hence the hunt is on.

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.

Maintaining Supply Chain Security in pharmaceuticals: The need is now more than ever before.

Posted on September 26, 2011 by Tapan Ray

In today’s globalized economy maintaining Supply Chain Security (SCS), especially in the pharmaceutical sector across the world, is more critical than ever before. We have many instances of SCS being seriously breached, not only in the emerging pharmaceutical markets but also in the developed markets of the world.

Global examples of serious SCS violations:

Following are some at random examples of serious SCS violations globally in the recent times:

In 2007, over 300 people died in Panama in Central America after consuming a cough medication containing diethylene glycol, which was labeled as glycerin. The adulterant diethylene glycol was sourced from China and was relabeled as glycerin by a middleman in Spain, as reported by the media.

In March 2008, the US FDA prompted by around 81 drug related deaths in the USA, announced a large scale recall of Heparin injection, a well-known blood thinner from Baxter Healthcare suspecting contamination of a raw material sourced from China. Standard technology used by Baxter could not detect the contaminant, which the regulator considered as a deliberate adulteration. The contaminant was eventually identified as an over sulfated derivative of chondroitin sulfate, which costs a fraction of original heparin derivative. The ‘Heparin tragedy’ raised, possibly for the first time, the need of working out an algorithm to put in place a robust system for ‘supply chain security’. This need has now become critical as many pharmaceutical players, including those in India, are increasingly outsourcing the API, other ingredients and almost entire logistics from third parties.

‘Business Standard’ dated August 24, 2011 reported that Ranbaxy Laboratories and the US health regulator are negotiating a settlement to lift a ban on the sale of the drugs produced at 2 of the company’s plants in India, which could involve payments and fines exceeding $1 billion. This ban, as the report says, dates back to 2008, when the US regulator banned 30 generic drugs produced by the company at its Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) and Paonta Sahib and Batamandi unit in Himachal Pradesh, citing gross violations of approved manufacturing norms.

‘Business Ethics’ – the Magazine of Corporate Responsibility reported, “GSK facility in Puerto Rico suffered from long standing problems of product mix-ups, which caused tablets of one drug type and strength to be commingled with tablets of another drug type and/or strength in the same bottle…the subsidiary’s manufacturing operations failed to ensure that Kytril, an anti-nausea medication, and Bactroban, a topical anti-infection ointment, were free of contamination from micro organisms.” As a result, the US Justice Department reportedly announced, “GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (GSK) and the subsidiary agreed to pay US$750 million to settle charges that between 2001 and 2005 they distributed adulterated drugs made at GSK’s now-closed manufacturing facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico”.

As reported by Reuter, on April 30, 2010 recalled over 43 children’s medicines involving 136 million units and 12 countries in response to complaints from regulators and customers. This recall included liquid versions of Tylenol, Tylenol Plus, Mortin, Zyrtec and Benadryl, as they “may not fully meet the required manufacturing specifications.”

Despite presence of one of the most stringent drug regulators, the issue bothers even the US:

In the wake of all these, ‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported, despite the fact that US now imports more than 80% of APIs and 40% of finished drugs mainly from India, China and elsewhere, the agency conducts far fewer foreign inspections as compared to domestic inspections. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Ann Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

At another conference Ms. Hamburg said, “I think people have no idea in this country and around the world about the vulnerability of things that we count on every day and that we have a system that has big gaps in our protective mechanisms.”

FDA inspects only a fraction of foreign drug plants in the global outsourcing wave:

The investigative arm of US Congress, the Government Accountability Office reported, while US FDA inspected 40% of domestic manufacturing facilities in 2009, it inspected just 11% of the foreign manufacturing facilities, as the later outnumbered the domestic sites since 2008.

	INSPECTIONS BY FDA				ESTIMATED PLANTS IN FDA INVENTORY 2009
	2007	2008	2009	TOTAL	ESTIMATED PLANTS IN FDA INVENTORY 2009
India	64	64	59	187	502
China	19	36	52	107	920
Germany	26	34	36	96	228
Italy	28	28	30	86	168
Canada	20	19	35	74	310
U.K.	16	17	32	65	191
France	24	14	26	64	188
Japan	22	17	20	59	207
Switzerland	17	15	18	50	100
Ireland	14	11	19	44	63
All others	83	69	97	249	888
Total	333	324	424	1,081	3,765

NOTE: Most frequently inspected foreign countries. SOURCE: Government Accountability Office.

US FDA’s Counterfeit Drug Initiative:

The initiative includes the following measures:

Secure the product and packaging
Secure the movement of drugs through the supply chain
Secure business transactions
Ensure appropriate regulatory oversight and enforcement
Increase penalties
Heighten vigilance and awareness
International cooperation.

If such instances are available from the developed markets of the world, especially from the US, one can well imagine what is happening in the emerging markets of the world. In the developed markets, at least these are detected and rectifying measures are taken. Unfortunately, in the emerging markets scores of such criminal instances go undetected taking innocent lives of the patients.

Fast growing global outsourcing initiatives have increased the risks by manifold:

Thus even the US FDA acknowledged that fast growth of globalization in drug manufacturing has outstripped the agency’s resource pool for effectively inspecting all overseas outsourcing facilities.

As a result of the outsourcing wave in the US, the number of US FDA approved local drug manufacturing sites in the country is gradually coming down since 2008, with a commensurate increase in the number of foreign sites.

2000		2002		2004		2006		2008a*
Domestic	Foreign	Domestic	Foreign	Domestic	Foreign	Domestic	Foreign	Domestic	Foreign

2625	1150	2700	1500	2900	2000	3000	2500	2480	3800

NOTE: US FDA-registered drug-manufacturing sites with at least one product listed in FDA database. *a Preliminary estimates. SOURCE: US FDA

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

Pharmaceutical players and the drug regulators from across the world should put proper ‘fool proof’ systems in place to eliminate the growing menace of criminal adulteration of APIs, drug intermediates, excipients entering in the supply chain together with preventing any breach in their logistics support systems.

Regulators fail to keep pace with the fast growth of global generic industry:

Many feel a shift in prescription towards generic drugs, especially in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the US, is making the regulatory task of the FDA to inspect all drug ingredient suppliers indeed quite challenging.

Currently, 70% of all prescriptions in the US are contributed by the generic drugs, which indeed play an important role to contain the health care cost. However, as an innovative drug goes off patent a single manufacture’s product gets transferred to multiple manufacturers located across the world, making the task of the drug regulator to ensure high quality and safety standard of the same drug extremely challenging.

Conclusion:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively. All pharmaceutical players should realize that an integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company, especially when counterfeiters find ways to bypass any such system very quickly.

Like other industries, in the pharmaceutical sector, as well, cost effective procurement is critical, which makes many pharmaceutical players, especially, in the generic industry not to go for such expensive process just to maintain the SCS.

Thus a strong corporate governance mechanism in all pharmaceutical companies must ensure, come what may, putting in place a robust SCS system is not compromised in any way… ever… for patients’ sake.

Sanofi’s acquisition of Universal Medicare could redefine nutraceuticals business in India

Posted on September 12, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The Economic Times in its August 24, 2011 edition reported that Sanofi-Aventis has acquired the nutraceuticals business of Universal Medicare to scale up their business operations in the ‘wellness’ space of the healthcare sector in India.

What are ‘Nutraceuticals’?

Dr. Stephen DeFelice of the ‘Foundation for Innovation in Medicine’ coined the term ‘Nutraceutical’ from “Nutrition” and “Pharmaceutical” in 1989. The term nutraceutical is being commonly used in marketing such drugs/substances but has no regulatory definition.

It is often claimed that nutraceuticals are not just dietary supplements, but also help prevention and/or treatment of disease conditions.

Besides diseases, nutrition related risk factors contributing to more than 40% of deaths in the developing countries like India, nutraceutical products do show a promise as an emerging business opportunity within the healthcare space of the country.

The market:

The global nutraceuticals market is currently estimated to be around US$ 117 billion and expected to reach US$ 177 billion by 2013 with a CAGR of 7%, driven mainly by functional foods segment with a CAGR of 11%. The top countries in this category are Japan, USA and Europe with the former two together enjoying around 58% market share of the total nutraceuticals consumption of the world. In 2008 Indian nutraceuticals market was around US$ 1.0 billion, 54% of which being functional foods.

The prices of most nutraceuticals products, being outside government price regulations in India, are usually high.

Although current market share of India in the global nutraceuticals market is less than even 1%, a report from PwC predicts that India will join the league of top 10 by 2020. Increasing discretionary spending, changing lifestyles and growing awareness among Indians about healthy living, coupled with current overall low market penetration of high priced nutraceuticals products in India, could create a powerful trigger for the market growth.

Sanofi could sniff the opportunity in India:

Sniffing the market opportunity in this segment, especially in India, the Sanofi group’s Aventis Pharma, as mentioned above, has acquired the nutraceuticals business of Universal Medicare Private Ltd of worth Rs.110 Crore, in August, 2011. The nutraceuticals product portfolio of Universal Medicare consists of more than 40 brands, which include cod liver oil capsules, vitamins/ mineral supplements, antioxidants and liver tonics to name a few.

It will be interesting to watch whether Sanofi takes these nutraceutical products to other markets of the world, especially in Japan, Europe and the US.

Currently most global pharma companies are engaged in evidence based therapeutic substances:

So far, the large global pharmaceutical players have been focusing mainly, if not only on Evidence Based Medicines (EVM). Companies like, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), were reported to have discontinued marketing those products, which do not fall under ‘Evidence Based Medicines (EVM), even in India.

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM):

The term and concept of EBM originated at McMaster University of Canada in early 1990 and has been defined as “the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values” (Sackett, 2000).

EBM is thus a multifaceted process of systematically reviewing, appraising and using clinical research findings to aid the delivery of optimum clinical care to patients/user. EBM also seeks to assess the strength of evidence of the risks and benefits of any particular treatment claim. This is mainly because increasingly the users are looking to authentic scientific evidence in clinical/wellness practice.

Thus many global pharmaceutical companies believe that EBM offers the most objective way to determine and maintain consistently high quality and safety standards of healthcare products in the healthcare practice.

The span of nutraceuticals ranges from prescription to OTC Products:

In India, nutraceuticals are being used/prescribed even by the medical profession, not only as nutritional supplements but also for the treatment of disease conditions, like arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiology, diabetes, pain management etc.

The challenge: Some experts believe, robust clinical data support is essential to substantiate ‘wellness’ claim with nutraceuticals:

Therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of a disease condition is established with pharmaceutical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies of the substances concerned. Some experts believe that these studies are very important also for nutraceuticals, as they are involved in a series of various reactions within the body, especially while making any therapeutic claims, directly or indirectly.

Similarly, to establish any long term toxicity problem with such products, generation of credible data including those with animal reaction to the products, both short and long term, using test doses several times higher than the recommended ones, is critical.

These experts, therefore, quite often say, “A lack of reported toxicity problems with any nutraceutical should not be interpreted as evidence of safety.”

The status in the USA:

In the USA, Congress passed the ‘Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act’ in 1994. This act allows ‘functional claims’ to Dietary supplements without drug approval, like “Vitamin A promotes good vision” or “St. Johns Wort maintains emotional well-being”, as long as the product label contains a specific disclaimer that the said claim has not been evaluated by the FDA and that the product concerned is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

The above Act bestows some important responsibility to the doctors in particular, who are required to provide specific and accurate scientific information for nutraceutical products to their patients. This process assumes critical importance as the patients would expect the doctors to describe to them about the usefulness of nutraceutical products as alternatives to approved drugs. In such cases, if any doctor recommends a dietary supplement instead of pharmaceutical products, the doctor concerned must be aware of the risk that the patient’s health may suffer, for which the affected patient could sue the doctor for malpractice.

The Point to ponder: What happens if nutraceuticals are regulated as pharmaceuticals?

It is worth mentioning, if generation of clinical data, though albeit less than the pharmaceuticals, ever becomes mandatory regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of nutraceutical products in India, commensurate increase in price for such products could indeed push their commercial survival in jeopardy.

Conclusion:

Nutraceuticals bearing a tag of promise, in a conducive regulatory environment, to provide desirable therapeutic benefits with less or no side effects as compared to conventional medicines, is growing well with reasonably good financial success, across the world. India is no exception.

In India, many nutraceuticals products, which are currently in the market, do not seem to have been adequately tested to generate robust clinical data, leave aside being peer reviewed and published in the reputed international journals for either safety or efficacy. Entry of global majors, like Sanofi, with a sharp focus on EBM, brings in a hope and promise to get these loose knots, in this very important area, tightened very significantly, while driving their business growth in the country.

Under this backdrop, it is widely expected that Sanofi, with its well proven global marketing and technical leadership, would change the ball game of nutraceutical products business in the healthcare space of India.

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.

Family owned pharma business: Separate ownership from management for long term organization interest

Posted on August 22, 2011 by Tapan Ray

A study recently conducted by ‘ASK Investment Managers’ reported, “Family Owned Businesses (FOB)” account for 60% of market cap among the top 500 companies in India and comprise 17% of the IT Industry, 10% of refineries, 7% of automobiles and 6% of telecom, in the country. Within the domestic pharmaceutical sector similar percentage, I reckon, will be much higher.

July 31, 2011 edition of ‘The Times of India’ published an article titled, “Keep dynasties out of India Inc.” The article described the dynastic management succession of India Inc. as:

“Family-run businesses in India have rudimentary succession plans. Most follow a set formula: the heir receives an MBA from a good American university, joins the family business in mid-management, rises rapidly up the ranks and eventually takes the top job”.

Many, however, believe that, especially, for medium to large Indian companies, the financial interest of the owners will be better served if they separate ownership from management, as we find even today that just below the founder Chairman, many big Indian corporations like, Reliance, Tata, Aditya Birla Group, Godrej and even Dabur, are run by strong team of professionals. However, such a scenario has not emerged in the domestic pharmaceutical industry of India, not just yet.

In this context, it is worth mentioning that while interacting at a CII event in New Delhi on April 9, 2011, Mr. Adi Godrej, Chairman of Godrej Group said:

“I expect that my successor will be someone from the family. Though the heads of the Group Companies are all professionals… If a family member is to be chosen, external assessment is also very important.”

On a different note, Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Chairman of Bajaj Group had earlier announced that their businesses will continue to be managed by Bajaj family members.

This brings us to the moot question, ‘is there any institution more enduring or universal than a family business?’ Before the multinational corporations, there were FOBs. Before the Industrial Revolution, there were FOBs. Before the enlightenment of Greece and the empire of Rome, there were FOBs.

However, with today’s fast changing corporate business dynamics, the same question haunts again, ‘will the FOBs prevail in this new millennium, as well?
Families are the developmental foundation for new business and future prosperity:
In many of the most productive countries, like, the United States, Germany, Spain and China, to name just a few, families control up to 90 percent of the businesses and contribute more than 50 percent of the gross domestic product. In the emerging economies, families are the developmental foundation for new business and future prosperity. Until now, the focus on ensuring prosperity through family businesses was to help them preserve wealth and survive from one generation to the next. But with changing times, the families have come to understand the requirements for long-run growth and productivity that can generate prosperity for many generations to come. A critical facet of all thriving businesses and growing economies is no secret entrepreneurship.
Need to differentiate between a family and business interest: Even in India a large number of businesses are owned and managed by families, which though always may not be considered as a weakness, as long as the families are able to:
• Differentiate between a family and business interest • Bring in a strategic focus in business, instead of trying to do everything that appears lucrative • Strike a right balance between their short and long term strategic business goals with a sharp customer focus • Build a human capital for the organization and appoint the best professionally-fit person for the key positions • Decentralize the decision making process with both authority and accountability. (Unfortunately many Indian entrepreneurs still feel that an organization can be termed as a professional one just by hiring outside professionals and keeping all major decision making authority within the family and close friends) • Institute good corporate governance within the organization.

In India, almost all of the domestic Pharmaceutical companies are family run:
Almost hundred percent of the domestic Pharmaceutical companies in India are currently family run. As most of these companies started showing significant growth only after 1970, we usually see the first or second generation entrepreneurs in this family run businesses. In most of these companies, ownership is well defined and has been very clearly established. Unfortunately, in few others, internal squabbles within the family members, make the Board of Directors irrelevant and consequently seem to be on a disastrous tail spin.

The most successful Indian Pharmaceutical Company, so far, with global foot prints is Ranbaxy. Unfortunately, in the very early third generation of entrepreneurship, the business was sold off to Daichi-Sankyo, probably for some very valid business reasons.
Even in the second generation of entrepreneurship, we have witnessed some well known Pharmaceutical Companies, like Glenmark, Elders etc. getting split up between brothers. Perhaps in future we shall see more of such splits and consolidations.
What could possibly be the reason of such changes within the family managed Indian Pharmaceutical Business? Could it be due to an overlap between family and business interests? Could it be that a professional manager at the helm, devoid of the concerned business family interest and reporting to a professional board of directors could have managed the business better? Is it then an issue of business leadership? Most probably it is.
‘Family Councils’ or ‘Super Board’?
Many ‘family owned’ companies in India irrespective of the types of business, after the organization attains a critical mass, create an informal or even formal “Family council” consisting of the family members. The “Family Councils” act as a primary link between the business family and the Board. They also play a key role in the appointments of the Board Members, the CEO and his direct reports.
Some feel that these ‘Family Councils’ with the sweeping decision making authority at the highest level that they have vested on themselves, could at times tend to act as a ‘Super Board’. When it happens, it seriously impedes the independent functioning of the Board, which may in turn prove to be counter- productive to overall governance of the business.
The situation could get further complicated, if there is a discord within the members of these all-powerful “Family Councils.”
Should a family business be professionalized in true sense?
Let us now try to deliberate, if the family decides to hand over the reign of business to a professional CEO, reporting directly to a professional board of directors, while retaining majority of voting rights, how could the family address this situation?
It is reported that at the close of 2007, the Chairman of Eli Lilly & Co. said publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time, “I think the industry is doomed if we don’t change”. The accompanying statistics painted a grim picture of the traditional big pharma business model going from blockbuster to bust. The old business model – sprawling organizations, enormous capital investments, and spiraling costs, underwritten by a steady stream of multibillion blockbuster products – is simply no longer feasible.
In search for a new and more viable business models, some boards of directors have been selecting CEOs of substantially different backgrounds to lead their companies through the current industry crisis.
It’s a bold new direction and being adopted by a number of leading companies. However, entails significant risk that boards should fully understand and take steps to mitigate.
The family run Pharmaceutical Companies in India should take a note of the changing dynamics of the professionally managed global pharmaceutical business while selecting the helmsman and may wish to get some message out of those newer trends, as and when they would decide to pass on the baton to a professional CEO reporting directly to a well competent professional board of directors.
Changing dynamics of the Big Pharma . . .
Although some global pharmaceutical companies are still following the traditional succession planning model, many leading pharmaceutical companies have started adopting different new models for succession planning. I have tried to classify those models into 4 categories, as follows:
GenNext Insiders: Preferring to seek leaders with pharma experience but with new perspectives, some boards have selected youthful industry insiders to take the reins:
• GlaxoSmithKline, Europe’s largest drug maker, has designated Andrew Witty to succeed Jean-Pierre Garnier as chief executive officer in May 2008. At 43, the new CEO, who has been with the company since 1985, will be its youngest-ever leader.
• One month before Witty took over at Glaxo, Severin Schwan, 40, became the youngest-ever CEO of Roche Holding AG, where he has spent his entire career.
Dare Devils: Other boards, also seeking the combination of pharmaceutical experience and new perspectives, have sought industry insiders from functions that don’t ordinarily lead to the top job:
• In 2006, Pfizer named Jeffrey Kindler, the company’s general counsel, to succeed Henry McKinnell. Kindler in his rather short tenure as the head honcho of the company, oversaw the company’s mega cquisition of Wyeth. However, in mid December, 2010 Jeffrey Kindler retired, rather all of a sudden, reportedly not being able to cope with the work pressure and Pfizer veteran Ian Read, Head of its Biopharmaceutical operations, immediately assumed the role of President, CEO and director in the Board of the Company.

• James M. Cornelius, who was named CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb in September 2006, spent 12 years as CFO of Eli Lilly.
Youthful Outsiders: Pursuing a leadership model that represents both the promise of youth and of outside perspectives, some companies have selected young leaders from other industries, initiating them into the pharma industry and then promoting them to CEO:
• In 2000, Thermo Electron (now Thermo Fisher Scientific) named as COO the then 41-year-old Marijn E. Dekkers, who had previously held several executive positions at Honeywell International, and who became CEO of Thermo in 2002.
• In 2007, Novartis brought 47-year-old Joseph Jimenez aboard to lead the Novartis Consumer Health Division and named him CEO of Novartis Pharmaceuticals shortly after. He brought with him extensive experience in consumer products at ConAgra, Clorox, and Heinz.
Seasoned Outsiders: Although a 50-something executive from outside the industry would offer an attractive combination of an established record of leadership and fresh perspectives, this model has rarely been tried. The scarcity of examples is surprising, given that such a strategy is less risky than bringing in youthful outsiders, and I expect to see this new model adopted in upcoming nominations.
Enabling it to work… One will observe that the risk in all of these new representations is high but doing nothing is inherently riskier. In the meantime, I would recommend that Indian Pharmaceutical Companies who may contemplate to examine one of these models should try to explore the following three steps to ensure long-term success:
1. Employ the most sophisticated assessment techniques available:
In all four versions, the most difficult challenge is evaluation of talent.
GenNext Insiders lack the extensive leadership background that might indicate how well they will perform over the long term.
Dare Devils are difficult to assess for competencies they’ve rarely been required to exhibit.
Youthful Outsiders not only lack extensive leadership backgrounds but also pose the question of how well their talents will apply to pharma.
Seasoned Outsiders pose the same challenge.
Arguably, these new leadership models have expanded the pool of potential CEO candidates, but they clearly require boards to exercise great diligence in assessment.
2. Continually plan for succession:
After installing a new CEO, the Indian entrepreneur along with its professional Board of Directors shouldn’t assume that the company is set for the next five to ten years. In the event that the new leader fails to produce over the first 24-36 months, the board should have a Plan B already in place, as the markets will not be as patient. Defining skill sets, aligning search committees, and recruiting a new leader takes time, and the average length of CEO tenure continues to shrink. Thus through ongoing succession planning, the board can be ready for any eventuality. It is wise to engage in constant succession planning at the top in any industry, but it’s essential in an industry searching for fundamental shifts in its business models, through new leadership.
3. Create a talent pool:
For an Indian Pharmaceutical Company, in a short span – the search for CEO talent will become even more challenging. The professional board of directors will understand this today and insist that their companies take action to create a talent bench now, by bringing in executives from other industries and providing them with development plans that can potentially lead to the top job. Stakeholders and markets are unlikely to wait patiently for success in this period of profound transformation in the industry. Whichever leadership models the boards will choose, they should take every precaution to get it right the first time.
Family-run Indian Pharmaceutical Businesses will now face even a more challenging future:
The glorious history of the family run Indian Pharmaceutical Business will now face even a more challenging future. The valor and resolve of these entrepreneurs would be tested by the product-patent regime, the ever evolving product portfolios, the environment of intense competition and consolidations.
Crossing the second generation of a ‘family-run’ business is critical:
In most of the family-run pharmaceutical businesses, successfully crossing the second generation of promoters appears to be critical for the ongoing success of the organizations. A large majority of family-run pharmaceutical businesses in India is still run by the first generation of promoters. Those companies, including very large ones like Ranbaxy or even the medium to smaller size promoter driven pharma businesses, who are or were with their second generation of promoters, had faced or could face their own problems in various areas including the ownership issues or in passing on the baton to a competent successor. In that process some of these very successful companies have even changed hands.
In addition, some other well-reputed promoter driven pharmaceutical businesses are ‘going south’ in their business performance, mostly because the second generation of promoters are not collectively pulling on to the same direction and in that process creating confusion within the management of the organization. Upcoming third generation, though not yet ready to run the businesses, tend to throw their weight in the critical decision making process, endangering very survival of the business. This could put the organization in a difficult to control deadly ‘tail-spin’, as it were.
Conclusion:
In a situation like this, with increasing global business opportunities, together with the new IPR regime, Indian Pharmaceutical entrepreneurs should separate the ‘business interest’ from the ‘family interest’, appoint a professional CEO, reporting directly to a competent and professional board of directors, to face squarely the “Challenge of Change” and be accountable to deliver the agreed deliverables to the stakeholders of the business.

A fair and transparent succession model is a crucial element of good corporate governance in the family run pharmaceutical businesses in India, just as any other industry sectors. Someone in this context said, “the market is a ruthless arbiter: it will reward companies that rise above family’.

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.

Credible role of CCI and NPPA should allay fear of possible ill effects of FDI in Pharmaceuticals

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Tapan Ray

On August 3, 2011, ‘The Hindu Business Line’ reported, “Domestic drug-makers worried by side-effects of MNC buyouts.” It opined, “Acquisitions in the pharma industry came in for sharp focus, after several domestic drug-makers sold their operations partially or entirely to overseas companies – raising concerns of, among other things, increase in medicine prices.”

However, on August 4, 2011 the same business daily retorted, “MNC drug-makers allay fears of rise in prices.” It asserted, “Multinational drug-makers have stressed that they are committed to achieving the country’s healthcare goals”.

March 18, 2011 issue of ‘Export Import News’ wrote, “FDI in pharma sector comes down during current financial year as debate on ‘Take-Overs’ rages on”.

The Union Health Minister Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad is reportedly arguing in favor of putting a cap on the FDI limit for pharmaceuticals in India. This is based on an apprehension that such FDI would have an overall adverse impact on the health care scenario of the country, especially, on pricing and availability of medicines to the common man.

It has also been reported that the Commerce Ministry is in favor of reviewing the situation after taking into consideration of the report to be submitted to them by an international consulting firm. This seems to have been prompted by the request of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) based on the recent takeovers of Indian companies by the Multi National Pharmaceutical Corporations. It appears that the recommendations of the Ministry of commerce, prepared in consultation with the DoP, will then be forwarded to the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister for a final direction on the much hyped and talked about issue.

Views of the Planning Commission of India:

Meanwhile, most of the daily business papers of India reported that on July 12, 2011, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia commented, “I don’t think there is any move anywhere to prevent the expansion of existing 100% foreign owned pharmaceutical companies or to prevent green field investment by foreign companies.”

A reasonable comment:

This comment of Mr. Ahluwalia seems quite reasonable, considering the fact that full control of powers on Mergers and Acquisitions of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) effective June 1, 2011, has already been notified.

CCI to address all possible adverse impact on competition due to M&A:

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) will now carefully scrutinize the possibilities of the market being less competitive due to Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) of companies across the industry in the country. This concern becomes even greater, especially, in the horizontal mergers and acquisitions between the comparable competitors in the same products or geographic markets, as we have been witnessing also in the pharmaceutical sector of India, over a period of time.

However, the country is yet to notice any quantifiable ill effects of such horizontal or vertical M&A. Neither is there any major case pending with the CCI in this regard for the pharmaceutical sector.

Competition related scrutiny is nothing new in the developed markets:

Competition related scrutiny during M&A is nothing new in the developed markets of the world and is already being followed in the USA, the countries within the European Union (EU) and elsewhere.

Key concerns with M&A in pharmaceuticals:

Many believe that M&A even in the oligopolistic nature of pharmaceutical market in any country, if not abused will not do any harm to competition. Possibly for this reason, it will be rather difficult to cite many examples, the world over, where companies have been stopped from merging by the regulators because of anti-competitive reasons.

Another school of thought, however, believes that large M&A could ultimately lead to oligopolistic nature of the pharmaceutical industry with adverse impact on competition. Thus M&A regulations are very important for this sector.

Moreover, we need to remember that competition no longer depends only on the number of players in any given field. To explain this point many people cite the example of two large global players in the field of brown liquid beverages, Coke and Pepsi, where despite being limited competition, consumers derive immense value added economic benefits due to cut throat competition between these two large players.

It goes without saying, CCI must ensure that in any M&A process, even within the pharmaceutical industry of India, such rivalry does not give way to an absolute monopoly, directly or indirectly.

M&A activity in India:

In India, the consolidation process within the Pharmaceutical Industry started gaining momentum way back in 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan. 2008 witnessed one of the biggest mergers in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India with US $4.6 billion.

Last year, in May 2010, Chicago based Abbott Laboratories acquired the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with US$3.72 billion. This was soon followed by the acquisition of Paras Pharma by Reckit Benkiser.

The ground realities:

In India, if we look at the ground reality, we find that the market competition is extremely fierce with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market, IPM) having not less than 50 to 80 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism.

In an environment like this, the apprehension of threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing will be rather imaginary. More so, when the medicine prices in India are the cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

CCI and NPPA will play a critical role:

One of the key concerns of the stakeholders in India is that M&A will allow the companies to come together to fix prices and resort to other anti competitive measures. However, in the pharmaceutical industry of the country this seems to be highly unlikely because of effective presence of the strong price regulator, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), as mentioned above.

Thus even after almost three years of acquisition, the product prices of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010. Similarly post acquisition of Piramal Healthcare by Abbott USA and Shantha Biotech by Sanofi of France, average product price increases of these two Indian subsidiaries were reported to be just around 2% and 0%, respectively.

However, even if there is any remote possibility of M&A having adverse effect on competition, it will now be taken care of effectively by the CCI, as it happens in many countries of the world, Israel being a recent example involving an Indian company.

‘Competition Commission’ does intervene:

In the process of the acquisition of Taro Pharma of Israel by Sun Pharma of India in 2008, being concerned with the possibility of price increases due to less competitive environment in three generic carbamazepine formulations, the Competition Commission in Israel intervened, as happened in many other countries. As a result, Sun Pharma was directed by the regulator to divest its rights to develop, manufacture and market of all these three formulations to Torrent Pharma or another Commission approved buyer.

There are many such examples, across the world, of Competition Commission playing a key role to negate any possible ill effect of M&A.

Will the new Competition Law delay the M&A process?

Some apprehensions have been expressed that the new competition law could delay the process of a Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) . However, it is worth noting, in case the CCI will require raising any objection after the voluntary notification has been served, they will have to do so within 90 working days, otherwise the M&A process will deem to be solemnized.

Conclusion:

I reckon, in the M&A process, the entire Pharmaceutical Industry in India would continue to act responsibly with demonstrable commitment to help achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation.

Global players will keep on searching for their suitable targets in the emerging markets like India, just as Indian players are searching for the same in the global markets. This is a process of consolidation in any industry and will continue to take place across the world.

Adverse impact of M&A on competition, if any, will now be effectively taken care of by the CCI. In addition, the apprehension for any unreasonable price increases post M&A will be addressed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Thus, there are enough checks and balances already being in place to avoid any possible adverse impact due to M&A activities in India.In this evolving scenario, it is indeed difficult to understand, why the FDI issue related to M&A in the Pharmaceutical space of India is still catching headlines of both in the national and international media.

Be that as it may, it goes without saying that as we move on, the role of CCI in all M&A activities within the Pharmaceutical Industry of India will be keenly watched by all concerned, mainly to ensure that the vibrant competitive environment is kept alive within this sector.

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.

Restructure, reposition and empower the DoP to deliver more to the nation: Break the Silos

Posted on August 1, 2011 by Tapan Ray

A news item on July 25, 2011 reported, “DoP (Department of Pharmaceuticals) moots National Authority for Drugs & Therapeutics (NADT) with Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) under it”.

If I recall, some years ago, a Government of India (GoI) appointed taskforce had also suggested integration of the offices of the DCGI, CDSCO and NPPA along with all their powers and functions. However, nothing has fructified, as yet, not even the Central Drug Authority (CDA) Bill, which was mooted in 2007.

In the same context while taking a pause to look back, we note that in 2008 to help accelerating the growth momentum of the pharmaceutical industry of India through a more efficient government administrative and policy machinery, the GoI created a new department called the ‘Department of Pharmaceuticals’ under the MOC&F.

It was widely expected at that time that the DoP will be able to address the following key pharmaceutical industry related issues with an integrated approach to strike a right balance between the growth fundamentals of the industry and the Public Health Interest (PHI):

Drug policy and pricing
Providing access to high quality and affordable modern medicines to all
A facilitating drug regulatory system
An appropriate ecosystem to encourage R&D and protect Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
Addressing the issue of high out of pocket expenses of the general population for healthcare
Fiscal and tax incentives required by the Micro-Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) within the pharmaceutical industry of India.

As stated above, all these will necessitate close coordination and integration of work of various departments falling under the different ministries of the government.

The key Objectives of the DoP:

Following are the stated key objectives of the DoP:

1 Ensure availability of quality drugs at reasonable prices as per the Pharma Policy

2 Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support

3 Develop Pharma Infrastructure and Catalyze Drug Discovery and Innovation

4 Launch and Position Pharma India Brand.

The moot questions:

Considering all these, the moot questions that could follow are as follows:

Do the objectives of the DoP effectively address the need to improving access to quality and affordable medicines to the common man with an integrated approach between all concerned departments of MOC&F and MOH&FW?
Is the nodal department of the pharmaceutical industry – the DoP currently placed in the right Ministry to contribute more effectively to achieve the ultimate national goal of ‘ affordable healthcare for all’ ?

Need for greater co-ordinated approach:

The issue of access to quality and affordability medicines, reaching patients in conformance to a strict regulatory framework, will need to be addressed with an integrated systems approach.

As is commonly believed, increasing access to modern medicines will depend mainly on the following key requirements:

Creating an appropriate healthcare infrastructure and delivery system across the country.
Making prices of medicines reasonable/affordable to a large section of the population.
Reducing high (80%) ‘Out of Pocket’ healthcare expenses of the common man through a well-structured healthcare financing/health-insurance model for all strata of society.

All these measures will entail very closely working together between the DoP and the related departments of MOH&FW. This situation calls for consideration of repositioning the DoP by making it a part of MOH&FW and NOT of MOC&F.

Pharmaceutical Industry: The areas of key importance:

Be that as it may, let us now try to have a closer look at the other aspect – the key areas of importance of the pharmaceutical industry for its accelerated growth and development and try to ascertain, if DoP is made responsible for all these critical areas, which Ministry they will need to deal with, the most:

1. Drug Policy and Pricing:

Currently DoP is responsible for an inclusive growth oriented drug policy and drugs pricing (through National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, NPPA) under the MOC&F. This key activity of the department has immense impact on the performance of the pharmaceutical industry of India.

2. ‘Access’ and ‘Availability’ of modern medicines across the country:
Availability of pharmaceutical products is intimately linked to the quality of access to pharmaceuticals by a vast majority of population of India, as indicated above, depends on availability of requisite healthcare infrastructure and the delivery systems, besides the prices of medicines.

‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme – a praiseworthy initiative of the DoP now seems to be a near disaster in terms of the project implementation. This scheme could have been more meaningful with the support of adequate health related infrastructural facilities and in tandem with the projects like, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), National Urban Health Mission (NUHM), Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojna (RSBY) targeted to offer better healthcare to the common man with a robust and integrated healthcare delivery initiative.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOH&FW) is responsible to create such healthcare related infrastructure and delivery system.

3. Drug Regulatory System:

The drug regulatory system of the country, which is so important to the pharmaceutical industry for its rapid growth and development, is now operating at a sub-optimal level for various reasons. The dissatisfaction of the industry with this key regulator reportedly has reached its nadir.

Almost the entire Drug Regulatory System in India is being run and governed by the office of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), which comes under the MOH&FW. DCGI’s office is responsible for effective and speedy implementation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India (DCA), which includes world class and ethical clinical trial standards in the country, marketing approval of all new products including exports, implementation of Schedule M (cGMP), all pharmaceuticals site registrations and effectively addressing the issue of spurious and counterfeit drugs, just to name a few. DoP has hardly any direct or indirect control over any of these key activities falling under the purview of the MOH&FW.

4. Biopharmaceuticals:

The Department of Biotechnology under the Ministry of Science and Technology currently looks after this emerging area of pharmaceuticals sector. DoP has no direct control over these activities.

5. R&D and IPR:

R&D and IPR related issues in pharmaceuticals/biopharmaceuticals are very important areas of the pharmaceutical business in the country. Although IP Policy related areas are looked after by the Department of Industrial policy and Promotion (DIPP), some contentious and highly debated IP related issues like, Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), Patent Linkage etc. are currently within the domain of DCGI under MOH&FW. DoP has no direct role to play in these areas.

6. High out of pocket expenses for healthcare:

In India ‘Out of Pocket Expenses (OPE)’ towards healthcare is around 80%. Such high OPE, especially in case of very serious and life threatening illnesses, like cancer, cardiovascular emergencies etc. could make a middle class household poor and a poor household could even be pushed ‘Below the Poverty Line (BPL)’.

Thus high OPE is indeed a very serious issue of the country, which can only be addressed through policy initiatives by designing appropriate health insurance/healthcare financing scheme for all strata of society in India.

For a large section of the society, this issue can be addressed by MOH&FW in consultation with Ministry of Finance, just as they have come out with an innovative and praiseworthy RSBY scheme for the BPL families. DoP does not seem to have much role to play in this area, as well.

Thus the objective of GoI to have greater focus on healthcare in general and the pharmaceuticals in particular could be better achieved, if the DoP is made a part of MOH&FW by breaking the independent silos in form of the NPPA, CDSCO, DCGI etc., now operating, especially, in these two ministries.

Key issues of pharma industry versus key objectives of the DoP: From the above details, if one compares the key issues and success factors of the pharmaceutical industry of India versus the key objectives of the DoP, one will notice a dis-conformity.

If this is allowed to continue even the all-important first objective of the department, ”Ensuring availability of quality drugs at reasonable prices as per the Pharma Policy” will continue to remain an illusion. It is indeed surprising to note that this objective does not talk anything about improved access to modern medicines by the common man, either.

Over a period of over last four decades India has experienced that only through increased focus on affordability, the objective of increased access to medicines by the common man could not be achieved in India. Besides other healthcare infrastructure related factors, high OPE still remains a key barrier to access to modern medicines by the common man.

Why is DoP trying to revive the loss making pharmaceutical Public Sector Units (PSUs)?

As stated above, the second objective of the DoP, which states, “Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support” is equally intriguing. Everyone knows that all these PSUs created by spending tax payers’ money , miserably failed to perform and deliver even when the Indian pharmaceutical industry continues to register a CAGR growth of around 15% decade after decade. It is indeed difficult to fathom, which magic wand of the DoP will be able to bring these loss making and heavily bleeding PSUs out of continuous non-performance and governance failure in an era of fierce competitive pressure within the industry, by pouring even more from the national exchequer’s fund in the bottomless pits of losses of these PSUs?

I reckon, if these PSUs still attract interest of some good private buyers/investors with reasonable valuation, the government should unhesitatingly decide to unlock these values, sooner the better.

Conclusion:

In my view, if the DoP is expected to ensure improved “access to affordable and quality modern medicines to all”, as discussed above, the department should be repositioned and made a part of MOH&FW, rather than keeping it with the MOC&F, ignoring any possible political squabbles between the two concerned ministries, even in the coalition politics of India.

Such restructuring, repositioning and empowerment of the DoP in turn, will help achieving one of the key healthcare objectives of the nation, simultaneously fostering rapid growth of the industry making it a formidable global force to reckon with, both in the innovative and generic pharmaceutical business of the world.

This expected scenario, if gets translated into reality will justify the creation and existence of the DoP at the cost of huge amount of public fund.

Medical Tourism: A key growth driver in the healthcare space of India

Posted on July 25, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Since the last several years medical tourism is fast evolving as one of the key growth drivers of the healthcare sector, especially, in the western world like, the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom.

Dr. Fred Hansen in his article titled, “A revolution in healthcare medicine meets the marketplace (January 2008)” highlighted that the increasing number of high-quality healthcare facilities in developing countries are catering to medical tourists from the developed countries. Among them there are many uninsured Americans. Medical services outside USA in the developing countries are much cheaper. On average it is around 80%. For example, a cardiac surgery, which will cost more than US$ 50,000 in the United States, 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. For this reason, Dr. Hansen predicted that the number of Americans traveling abroad for healthcare is expected to increase from around 1.3 million in 2008 to 6 million by 2010.

It has been reported that about 500,000 foreign patients traveled to India for medical care in 2005 from an estimated 150,000 patients in 2002 mainly from USA, UK and the Gulf countries for low-priced high quality healthcare in various disease areas. More and more people from these countries are finding the prospect of quality and value added medical care in countries like India financially attractive.

The Global Market:

In 2006 the global market for medical tourism was around US$ 60 billion. According to McKinsey & Company, this market could expand to US$100 billion by 2012.

An evolving sector in India:

Thus, medical tourism is fast establishing itself as an evolving area of business in the global healthcare space. In that space, India is fast emerging as one of the most preferred medical tourism destinations in the world.

This healthcare sector 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 worked out strategic game plan from the very nascent stage of its evolution process.

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, although with a market share of just around 3% the of global medical tourism industry. Thus, in medical tourism, India still remains a smaller player with enormous growth potential.

The key reason and influencers:

The most common reason for medical tourism globally is lack of (adequate) health insurance. The most common emerging destinations of medical tourism in the world are Thailand, Singapore, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia and India.

Other factors influencing Medical Tourism particularly in India are as follows:

Significant cost advantages.
High quality treatment and hospital stay with the 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 five areas the significant advantages that India offers will need to be adequately encashed in a sustainable manner.

Significant cost advantage in India: The patients from other countries of the world who come to India for medical care not only get world class healthcare services, but also are offered to stay in high-end ‘luxury’ hospitals fully equipped with the latest television set, refrigerator and even in some cases a personal computer. All these are specially designed to cater to the needs of these groups of patients.

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.

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
Parkinsons -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)

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

The key components:

The following four basic components constitute the medical 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 Key drivers and barriers to growth: 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 also promoting the traditional systems of medicines, like, Ayurveda, Siddha, and Yoga to project India as a the destination of choice for even 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 inadequate other basic infrastructural support like, roads, airports and power could pose to be barriers to growth, if not addressed immediately.

The PPP model:

Currently the government has started adopting a Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model to provide world class healthcare services through medical tourism both at the national and the state levels. This PPP model has been designed in such a way that continuous improvement in healthcare infrastructure takes place through the private sector resources ably supported by the public sector in terms of policy, budgetary and fiscal support towards such initiatives.

US apprehension about growing Medical 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.

Conclusion:

As we have noted above, due to global economic meltdown even many corporate business houses in the developed world are under a serious cost containment pressure, which includes the medical expenses for their employees. Such cost pressure prompts/ could prompt them 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 significant growth opportunity in the medical tourism sector in India.

India should keep in mind that other countries, in quite close proximity to ours, like, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia will continue to offer quite tough competition in the medical tourism space of our country.

However, superior healthcare services with a significant cost advantage at world class and internationally accredited facilities, treated by foreign qualified doctors, supported by English speaking support staff and equipped with better healthcare related IT services will only accelerate this trend in favor of India.

Thus it is a time to say, ‘medical tourism in India – Ahoy!’

‘Utility Models’: A process of winning in the world of innovation

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Tapan Ray

On May 13, 2011 the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) uploaded in their website a Discussion Paper on “Utility Models (UM)”. It was reported that as a policy initiative on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and to encourage innovation in the country, without diluting the present strict criteria for patentability, this discussion paper intends to trigger a healthy national debate on a very relevant subject.

Benefits of UM:

A publication titled, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries by International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva, Switzerland highlights the following benefits of the UM:

• Fosters local innovation for local industries to produce more goods and generate more employment.

• Protects valuable inventions which otherwise would not be protected under the patent law of the country.

• Prevents free-riding of inventions by copiers who do not make any investment in R&D.

• Generates additional revenue for the government in terms of fees towards registration, search, publication, etc.

• Acts as a source of valuable information via published specifications.

• Reduces incentives for industry to lobby for the inclusion of minor inventions in the patent regime, which in turn would limit the public domain much more than the less expansive utility model system.

Does India need UM Laws?

Though India is fast emerging as a global economic power to reckon with, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) of the country still do not have adequate resources and wherewithal to invest in various R&D projects in the right scale. Thus many of them are unable to come out with the types of inventions, which would have global potential and also conform to the prevailing Patents Act of India (2005).

Moreover, even today the benefits of acquiring ‘Intellectual property (IP)’ in the business process is still not widely understood and made use of, across various Indian industries. The requisite culture, appropriate ecosystem and thereby a groundswell for innovation are yet to take shape in our country.

Imitating or copying something new developed within or outside India is the order of the day in most of the industries in India. As the UM would require neither a high-tech infrastructural support nor high level of investments, coming out with a commercially relevant innovation with limited exclusivity period may not be as difficult, especially, by the MSME sector of India. UM could thus effectively help creating both an appropriate ecosystem and groundswell for innovation in the country.

As indicated in the DIPP Discussion Paper, many countries of the world like, Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Korea, Netherlands and others still find the UM as an extensively used tool to foster innovation within the local industries.

Utility models in some countries:

As indicated in the above DIPP Discussion Paper, I am quoting below examples of UM being practiced in some important countries:

COUNTRY	DATE OF FIRST LAW	DURATION OF PROTECTION	NAME	SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION
AUSTRALIA	1979/2001	8 years	Innovation Patent	no
AUSTRIA	1994	10 years	Utility Model	no
BELGIUM	1987	6 years	Short Term Patent	no
BRAZIL	1945	10 years	Utility Model	yes
CHINA	1985	10 years	Utility Model	no
FRANCE	1968	6 years	Utility Certificate	no
GERMANY	1891	10 years	Gebrauchsmuster	no
INDONESIA	1991	5 years	Simple Patent	yes
ITALY	1934	10 years	Utility Model	no
JAPAN	1905	not > 15 years	Utility Model	no
KOREA	1961	not > 15 years	Utility Model	yes – but deferred
MALAYSIA	1986	15 years	Utility Innovation	yes
MEXICO	1991	10 years	Utility Model	yes
NETHERLANDS	1995	6 years	Short Term Patent	no

(Source: Petty Patents by John Richards – updated version of Proceedings of the Fordham University School of Law International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference 1995,Juris Publishing and Sweet & Maxwell, 1998).

Therefore, keeping in mind of the needs of, especially, the MSME sector, I reckon, the UM should be seriously considered by the Government for expeditious implementation. As stated earlier, the UM would enable a large section of smaller entrepreneurs to get a limited commercial exclusivity for their inventions, which otherwise would not have been possible by them within the current patent regime of India.

Moreover, such inventions being incremental in nature, subsequent inventions would be triggered much faster with a cascading effect on continuous innovation in the country.

In this scenario, it will be very important to keep the registration cost for the UM within affordable limits by the Indian Patent Offices (IPO).

Scope of protection:

I reckon, all types of inventions, including mechanical and chemical ones, should be covered under the UM. If this does not happen the UM law will only be useful to a small section of the entrepreneurs.

Further, a large number of useful developments and improvements that may fall short of requirements of getting patents, could be well accommodated under the UM to encourage more and more innovations for rapid economic growth of the country.

In case of chemical or pharmaceutical innovations there will also be a chance for the smaller players to apply for the UM for incremental innovation, when such inventions would not pass the stringent qualifying criteria of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. I hasten to add that some contentious issues could possibly crop-up in this area, which needs to be resolved with well informed debates.

I would recommend that in India UM may be considered for innovations in areas of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, devices, tools, working instruments or apparatus with appropriate qualifying standards.

Parameters for consideration:

The inventive threshold for the UM would obviously be less than what is required by the patent laws of India. These should be very clearly enunciated by the policy makers without ambiguity whatsoever. However, the product novelty criteria in no case should be compromised, which should be similar to patents.

The period of exclusivity for UM varies internationally, for example, from 5 years in Indonesia to 10 years in China and 15 years in Korea. In India, the protection period should not ideally exceed 5 to 7 years from the date of grant of the UM with a much simpler registration process than the patent.

Section 8(1) of Patents Act may be suitably amended to include provision of UM. At the same time, providing details of corresponding UMs, along with related patent applications, if any, should be made mandatory.

An innovator should be allowed to apply for both patent and UM together. However, when only an application for patent will be filed and after scrutiny, if the same does not qualify for grant of patent, the concerned applicant may be allowed to convert the same application into UM, without any adverse impact on priority.

It is important to ensure that filing of a new UM nearer end of the term of patent is not allowed. The patent may, in such cases, be regarded as prior art by the IPO. Moreover, any provision for temporary protection of an invention as an UM pending grant of a patent should not be included in the legislation. Patent grant is usually a slow process in India, which quite often gets caught in the quagmire of delays and backlogs. In such a scenario, if any temporary exclusivity is granted by way of UM to the applicant, the entire patent processing system may get further slowed down.

Promoting domestic filings by MSMEs:

There does not seem to be any need to provide any specific provision to promote domestic filing by the MSMEs other than by way of providing for express provisions of disposal of infringement actions or other related contentious issues. Specific non-extendable time frames should be provided for all.

Currently the Courts in India have very little exposure to IP laws. Keeping this in mind UM laws should have simple wordings, free of ambiguity enunciating specific measures in case of infringement. Any invalidity should be clearly spelt out to avoid unnecessary appeals and unproductive, protracted and expensive litigation process.

To make Indian industries feel and understand the need for the protection/exclusivity for the UM, suitable awareness campaigns should be designed and championed by the government and the industry bodies with a focused approach to achieve this goal within a given timeframe.

UM and Traditional knowledge:

Traditional knowledge is something, which is already available or known to public at large and any protection to such knowledge would deny the civil society its legitimate rights in India. Thus, I shall strongly recommend that no exclusivity is granted to any person or industry on traditional knowledge.

However, rights to traditional knowledge may be provided through a different fail-proof mechanism to safeguard the interest of specific communities in India, who have inherited such knowledge through practice for generations.

The enforcement mechanism:

The enforcement mechanism for the UM should be similar to the Patent System or else a special ‘Utility Model Appellate Board (UMAB)’ may be considered for speedy redressal of infringement disputes.

Obviating monopolistic dominance:

Compensation / royalty rather than other methods of restrain could be a better option as most applicants would be MSMEs.

The UM law makers should, however, bear in mind that individual innovators although will have remedy within the law in case of a breach, due to sheer practical considerations, could at times feel helpless when a rich licensee will fail to compensate or pay royalty as per the order of a Court of law.

I would, therefore, suggest that there should be specific clauses in the UM law, which will be strong deterrent to such behaviour by unscrupulous elements, for example, payment of the compensation in an amount exceeding about 15 to 20 times of the original award in the event of default for no good reason. However in such a case the appropriate value may be properly decided to effectively avoid any attempt of ‘extortionary measures’ by anyone.

Conclusion:

It is believed by many that the UM framework with a lower threshold of invention will be able to encourage domestic incremental innovation in many areas of business. Thus, by providing protection to UM for about 5 years vis-a-vis 20 years, as provided by the patents, India can further stimulate the process of innovation, while discouraging monopolies in the country.

I reckon, a suitably designed UM framework will immensely encourage the domestic players to seek protection and obtain exclusivity for continuous incremental innovation in various facets of their respective businesses.

This process, in turn, will promote innovation based commercial business models within the country by offering low cost and affordable innovative products to the common man, adding simultaneously speed to the wheel of economic progress of the nation with inclusive growth.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Pharmaceuticals

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Maintaining Supply Chain Security in pharmaceuticals: The need is now more than ever before.

Sanofi’s acquisition of Universal Medicare could redefine nutraceuticals business in India

Family owned pharma business: Separate ownership from management for long term organization interest

Credible role of CCI and NPPA should allay fear of possible ill effects of FDI in Pharmaceuticals

Restructure, reposition and empower the DoP to deliver more to the nation: Break the Silos

Medical Tourism: A key growth driver in the healthcare space of India

‘Utility Models’: A process of winning in the world of innovation