Tag Archives: PM

UCPMP: Vacillating Between ‘The Perfect’ And ‘The Real’ World?

Posted on by
Reply

In the ‘perfect world’ one takes ‘perfect decisions’, while in the ‘real world’ one takes a ‘real decision’ – as the saying goes. In tandem, a raging debate continues on what is ‘perfect’ and what is ‘real’, in the world we live in today. This may cause a dilemma to many, which seems to be all pervasive today. Understandably, many critical industry practices and processes are also a part of this quagmire. The pharma industry, the world over, including India, is no exception, where such dilemma and debates span across virtually all the business domains of the industry.

However, in this article, I shall focus only on one specific issue – alleged pharma marketing malpractices that continue unabated, regardless of severe punitive measures in many cases, from several parts of the world. Has it then become a universal ‘culture’ in this area? For greater clarity, let me start the ball rolling by trying to understand the line that differentiates ‘the perfect world’ norms from ‘the real world’ ones.

Understanding the ‘line’ between the ‘Perfect World’ and the ‘Real World’:

I reckon, in ‘the perfect world’ people develop ideal values, ethical standards and practices. The social, business and economic environments also encourage and promote an uncompromising value system that culminates into perfect and desirable behavioral traits for all. Consequently, there are no grey areas in the ethics and value judgement, especially regarding what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’.

Whereas, in ‘real world’, the surrounding social, business and economic environment usually encourages and promotes self-serving interests, mostly from the shelter of ‘perfect world,’ as we shall see later. There also appears to be a flexibility in the overall value system – drawn around different guidelines, for preferred behavior and practices in most spheres of life. Consequently, one can spot many grey areas in that space, which are subject to different interpretation by different people. ‘Exceptions’ to the preferred behavior are also many.

As construed by many, one contemporary and broad example could perhaps be, the ethics, values and governance – enshrined in the Indian Constitution, arguably belong to the ‘perfect world.’ The same for ‘the real world’ is, what the majority of the population, including those who are governing the country demonstrate through words, deeds and action on the ground.

Living in ‘the real world’ – most expect others to practice ‘the perfect world’ norms:

Although, most people, including several different entities, actually prefer to live in ‘the real world,’ following commensurate practices and exceptions – generally expect others to practice ‘the perfect world’ norms – following commensurate ethics and values. Governments usually, try to exhibit that they want all citizens to be in ‘the perfect world’. However, under pressure of different nature, their policy enforcement arms keep maintain the status-quo of ‘the real world.’

Let me illustrate this point from the Indian perspective, with some recent examples related to the prevailing Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) in the country. Here itself, we shall find, even the Government machinery vacillating between the both worlds.

Government vacillating between ‘both worlds’:

A recent media report related to the ongoing allegation on pharma marketing malpractices in India raised a controversy. It reported, on January 13, 2020 – ‘PM Modi warns pharma companies not to bribe doctors with women, foreign trips and gadgets,’ during his meeting with the senior officials from top drug-makers. This move was, reportedly, triggered by the report of “Support for Advocacy and Training to Health (SATHI)” – an NGO.

Prior to this, on May 03, 2018, it was also widely reported, “Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently opened a Pandora’s box by condemning the allopathic doctors of the country during an interaction called ‘Bharat ki Baat, Sab ke Saath’ with the diaspora in London. The PM condemned the Indian doctors on charges of corruption and malpractice. He emphasized on the doctor-industry nexus and shared concerns on the fallout of such a relationship.”

The above statements, as reported, reflect deep anguish of the Prime Minister for violation of ethics and values in pharma marketing practices – as expected in the ‘Perfect World.’ Following this outburst at the top echelon of the country’s governance hierarchy, the logical general expectation is, commensurate action by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), at least, to contain those contentious practices.

But, the Government seems to be vacillating: 

Instead, just after a few weeks from what was quoted in the above January 2020 report – on February 09, 2020 another media report highlighted something that confirms vacillation of the Indian Government from ‘the perfect world’ to ‘the real world’, albeit too frequently, on this issue.

Despite UCPMP being in force for all drug companies to abide by, voluntarily, since January 2015, the situation in this area hasn’t improved a bit, which the DoP also seems to be well aware of. The obvious question, therefore, that follows: Is the DoP on the same page as PM Modi?

Interestingly, despite the PM’s assertion in this regard, the DoP Secretary, reportedly, kept playing the same old tune even after 5 years of the UCPMP’s unsuccessful implementation. He again repeated: “We have strictly instructed all the stakeholders to follow the code voluntarily. If not complied seriously, the department will bring in stricter regulations at the time to come and also think about making it mandatory for effective compliance.” This threat, from the ‘perfect world’ perspective, continues with the ‘real world’ understanding for action.

The possible reason for the above vacillation:

Many consider, intense lobbying by the pharma associations as the possible reason for vacillation of the Government. This is vindicated by another report of January 17, 2020 that claimed, a powerful Indian industry association has sought multiple tweaks in the current UCPMP – meant for voluntary implementation by the drug industry in India. Two of these, among several others, were reported as follows:

  • Relaxed rules for the distribution of free samples.
  • Permission for doctors to work at pharmaceutical companies.

As reported, this proposal of the industry has been floated among pharmaceutical companies, for comments. ‘Once approved by all member companies, it will be sent to Department of Pharmaceuticals secretary P.D. Vaghela.’ However, it appears, there doesn’t seem to be anything new in it, as news archives reveal, similar proposals were submitted by the Indian drug industry associations, in the past, as well.

At this stage, let me hasten to add that the above January 2020 report, quoting the Indian PM’s anguish, was denied by a domestic industry association by a statement.

The first report was denied – albeit vaguely – by an industry association:

Curiously, the January 2020 report was denied by the domestic Industry Association - Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) by releasing a statement. It said, the meeting convened by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the healthcare industry on January 01, 2020 was to discuss future road map for growth of the industry.

It further emphasized, the focus of the discussion was to promote research and development, build an innovation ecosystem, improve access to high-quality medicine and strengthen global competitiveness of the industry. The purpose was to take the industry to the next level and leverage opportunities going forward in the pharmaceutical sector. “There was no discussion on uniform code of pharmaceutical marketing practice in the meeting,” the statement added.

However, this statement appears rather vague to many, as it doesn’t emphatically deny that the PM did not say or mean those words, regardless of the context. Neither, the PMO, reportedly, has done so, as yet.

Probably because of this reason, another news article reported on January 15, 2020 that the Indian Medical Association, the country’s largest body of doctors, urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to “prove, deny, or apologize (for)” the purported statement attributed to him asking pharmaceutical companies ‘not to bribe doctors with foreign trips, gadgets and women.’ I am still not aware of any response from the PMO on the same. Hence, some people find the industry association’s statement, especially considering the core issue under discussion today, albeit vague.

Some key findings on UCPMP:

Be that as it may, as I indicated in one of my previous articles in this blog, a survey report by Ernst and Young titled, “Pharmaceutical marketing: ethical and responsible conduct”, was released in September 2011 on the UCMP and MCI guidelines. It highlighted some of the following points:

  • More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.
  • Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.
  • 90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal control system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.
  • 72 percent of the respondents felt that the MCI did not stringently enforce its medical ethics guidelines.
  • Just 36 percent of the respondents felt that the MCI’s guidelines would have an impact on the overall sales of pharma companies.

Although, this report may be a bit dated, its key findings don’t seem to have changed much as on date. It is also worth noting that there are umpteen examples of similar malpractices in the pharma industry, globally.

Conclusion:

“Compared to a strictly controlled manufacturing environment, the marketing environment for the pharmaceutical industry in India is less regulated, but will move towards greater regulation in times to come”, predicted ‘The Global Guide to Pharma Marketing Codes,’ a few years ago. The situation remains unchanged.

Alongside controversy over pharma firms allegedly ‘bribing’ medical professionals, the Alliance of Doctors for Ethical Healthcare (ADEH), a network of doctors from across the country has demanded that the UCPMP framed five years ago be made mandatory, as another media report highlighted on January 21, 2020.

But the reality is, the Government wants the drug industry to follow ‘the perfect world’ ethics and values in marketing practices to safeguard patients all round interest. Whereas, the drug industry wants the policy makers to appreciate the business compulsions of ‘the real world’ and introduce exceptions to the rules.

Both the stances are unlikely to meet a common ground, because general population expects the Government to adhere to ethics and values of ‘the perfect world’, in health care. Whereas, in public, pharma industry leaders often take vows of practicing so, but seem to act differently in ‘the real world’ situation, expanding the credibility gap.

In the perceivable future, it appears unlikely that the Government’s ‘perfect world’ expectations, and the ‘real world’ actions of most pharma players will be in sync with each other. Unless, of course, either the Government moves away from ‘the real world’ marketing ethics and values – safeguarding patient interest, to meet ‘real world’ expectations of the industry, or make pharma players to fall in line with ‘the perfect world’ expectance, by making the UCPMP mandatory.

Is the question, therefore, how to take a ‘perfect world’ decision for the people’s health interest, in the ‘real world’ of the pharma industry? Till this issue is resolved, UCPMP will continue to exist, but no more than a ‘toothless tiger’, as it were.

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.

 

 

Why D&I Is A Powerful Growth Driver For Pharma Industry

Posted on by
Reply

‘Diverse India’ now needs an ‘inclusive society’, vowed the Prime Minister of India, after his massive electoral win on May 23, 2019. Many may consider a part of it as rhetoric, notwithstanding, as and when the government policy of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) gathers wind on its sail, the realization of its importance would reverberate – even in the corporate world, including the pharma industry, especially in India.

I discussed this subject in my article of June 25, 2018 ,in the context of transforminga pharma company to a customer-oriented, profit-making organization, with implementation D&I within the organization. However, in this article, I shall deliberate, over and above, the current status of D&I in the pharma industry, why most drug companies are still not leveraging it as one of the powerful business growth drivers. While opening this discussion, let me recapitulate what these two words mean to us, and their importance in the drug industry.

Recapitulating D&I:

As there are several, but similar definitions of D&I, I am quoting below just one – from the Ferris State University. It goes, as follows:

  • “Diversity is the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical value system, national origin, and political beliefs.”
  • “Inclusion is involvement and empowerment, where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.”

The relevance and importance of D&I as a corporate growth policy for the drug industry is immense. It will not just, help them recognize and create business policies, based on diversity in people – a wide range of human differences in their consumers or potential consumers. In tandem, it will also help promote, and sustain a sense of belongingness with the society and communities where it operates – their values, beliefs, expectations and desire for a healthy living.

D&I begins within the company, and for the customers:

There are clear indications that many pharma companies are slowly, but surely realizing that for a consistent and sustainable financial performance the whole approach to business needs to undergo a metamorphosis. One such area of transformation, is a sharp focus on effectively satisfying a set of well-defined expectations of both their external and internal customers.

This journey begins with the creation of a Diverse and Inclusive (D&I) workplace. Nevertheless, the key goal remains – meeting expectations of the society where the drug companies operate, including a diverse set of customers – by saving and improving their quality of life, with affordable and accessible medicines.

While talking about diversity to Business Insider on January 10, 2018, GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley also reiterated, for a future facing employer in an industry, D&I should be a priority corporate strategy – for aggressively modernizing the business.

D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry’:

This has been well-articulated even in the Workforce – a multimedia publication, where it says: D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry, where the workforce needs to be both business savvy and socially empathetic to serve their increasingly diverse communities.’

Quoting another CEO, a different article titled, ‘Diversity and inclusion in the pharma industry’, published in PMLiVE on June 27, 2018, emphasized: ‘The global Biopharma industry is one of the most powerful and important industries today, directly affecting the lives of billions of people around the world on a daily basis. In order to understand and meet the critical unmet medical needs of patients, the industry must represent the population it serves.’

D&I is a growth driver for an organization:

“Many successful companies regard D&I as a source of competitive advantage. For some, it’s a matter of social justice, corporate social responsibility, or even regulatory compliance. For others, it’s essential to their growth strategy.” This was highlighted in the January 2018 research paper of McKinsey titled, ‘Delivering through Diversity.’

The article further elaborates: ‘D&I is a powerful growth strategy for an organization because it creates ‘a diverse and inclusive employee base – with a range of approaches and perspectives – would be more competitive in a globalized economy.’

Importantly, this research established a statistically significant correlation between greater levels of diversity and inclusion in company leadership and a greater likelihood of outperforming the relevant industry peer group on a key financial performance measure – profitability.

Some drug companies are moving in this direction:

That some drug companies are gearing up to adopt this growth strategy, but still there is a lot of ground to cover in this area, gets reflected in the December 2018 ‘Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarking Survey’ of PwC. The survey included 183 corporate respondents from 5 regions and 15 countries. As many healthcare organizations have publicly declared their commitment to D&I, the study wanted to measure how they have translated strategy into execution and what impact it is leaving on the employee experience. The following are some of the key findings

  • While D&I is a stated value or priority area for 68 percent of organizations, only 51 percent of respondents disagree that diversity is a barrier to progression at their respective companies. Thus, ‘Diversity still remains a barrier to progression.’
  • Only 4 percent of healthcare organization’s D&I programs reach the highest level of maturity.
  • D&I program goals are quite varied. For about 38 percent it’s a way to attract and retain talent – 25 percent – a way to comply with legal requirements – 17 percent to achieve business results – 13 percent to enhance the external reputation and 8 percent to respond to customer expectations.
  • Interestingly, in 39 percent of cases there was no D&I program-leader in place, 32 percent cases the person reports to senior executives, 19 percent of cases the responsibility was assigned to staff with non-D&I responsibilities and only in 10 percent of cases – the leader is a peer to C-suite.
  • Only 29 percent leaders are tasked with specific D&I goals.

These may not be the points to cheer about – not yet, nonetheless, the survey findings send a clear signal about the beginning of D&I in the pharma industry.

Two facets of D&I for a pharma company:

As I said before, D&I is more important in the health care space, especially for drug companies, where the employees across the organization not just be business savvy with patient orientation, but also be inclusive and socially compassionate to benefit the diverse communities.Thus, there are two clear facets, I reckon, around which organizational D&I policies, especially for pharma players, should be formulated, as follows:

  • For employees within the organization.
  • For stakeholders outside the organization – putting patients at the core of the business strategy.

The above PwC survey is on the first one – D&I for employees within the organization. However, a holistic D&I policy requires dovetailing business savviness with a socially empathetic mindset to serve increasingly diverse communities, is even more challenging.

More challenging is dovetailing business savviness with social empathy: 

To serve increasingly diverse communities, dovetailing business savviness with socially empathetic mindset, appears to be more challenging for the pharma industry, in general. Its manifestations are varied, such as, dented image or its declining reputation – leading to trust deficit with many stakeholders, including patients. Likewise, one of primary causative factors that give rise to such manifestations is considered to be in the drug pricing area.

The current scenario in this area has been captured in a paper titled, ‘Curbing Unfair Drug Prices’, published by The Yale Global Health Justice Partnership (GHJP), Yale Law School, Yale School of Public Health, National Physicians Alliance and Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut. The article unambiguously states, the high cost of prescription drugs is unsustainable, wherever it is. Spending on prescription drugs is increasing, either for different payers, or directly to patients through ‘out of pocket’ expenditure – at a faster pace than any other component of health care spending. Consequently, it is forcing many patients to skip doses of critical medicines, and several others to choose between their health and necessities, like food and rent.

The paper adds: “Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry continues to launch new drugs at exorbitant prices, increase prices of many old drugs without justification, and reap record profits. Evidence has unequivocally shown that high drug prices are not linked to the actual costs of research, development and manufacturing. Instead, inflated drug prices are a result of drug manufacturers’ power to charge whatever price the market will bear. The need for legislative action is urgent.”

One of the most recent examples of such jaw-dropping drug price was reported by Reuters, along with many others, on May 25, 2019 as: “Swiss drug maker Novartis on Friday won U.S. approval for its gene therapy Zolgensma for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), the leading genetic cause of death in infants and priced the one-time treatment at a record $2.125 million.”

That said, achieving this facet of D&I, is not just desirable, but also necessary to gain a sharp and well-differentiated competitive edge in sustainable financial performance. It is noteworthy that to be successful in this area, one of the key requirements is to assign specific accountability for D&I to that individual, where the bucks stop.

Assigning specific accountability for D&I implementation:

Yet another article titled, ‘Diversity and Inclusion: A Pharma 50 Perspective’, published in PharmExec on June 23, 2016, asserted that there is little point in tackling diversity without solving for inclusion.

It underlined: ‘Whereas diversity is the hardware bringing different machines together, inclusion is the software that brings the system to life.’ The authors suggested, as many others would: ‘Hiring a chief diversity officer can help, accelerating the process at the highest levels.’

Conclusion:

The good news is, the above McKinsey research study also found: ‘Corporate leaders increasingly accept the business imperative for D&I, and most wonder how to make it work for their firms and support their growth and value creation goals.’ The article reiterated the correlation between D&I and company financial performance. Thus, to effectively leverage this factor, developing a robust corporate D&I strategy aimed at both – the employees and the society, at large, appears to be the right choice.

From this perspective, a diverse and inclusive pool of employees, with varied range of approaches and perspectives are expected to meet both business expectations and the health needs of the society with more innovative ideas. Consequently, this deserves to be an organizational growth strategy, having a sharp competitive edge. It is mainly because, the initiative will uncover newer and unconventional pathways for providing greater access to affordable medicines, to save and improve the quality of many more lives. As the process rolls-out, it will keep gathering critical momentum, with support from all around and, more importantly, the enormous goodwill that the D&I strategy will attract from public, in general.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Special 301 Report and OCR – A brief Background:

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

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

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

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

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

The Deadlines for written submissions were as follows:

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

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

India’s earlier response to 2014 Special 301 Report:

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

The issue was raised during PM’s US visit:

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

The Indo-US joint statement addresses remedial measures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fresh hurdle in the normalization process:

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

What does US want?

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

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

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

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

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

Global healthcare NGOs strongly reacted:

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

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

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

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

Under US bullying, is India developing cold feet?

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

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

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

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

A Superficial and baseless interpretation:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

Pharma FDI: Damning Report of Parliamentary Panel, PM Vetoes…and Avoids Ruffling Feathers?

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting situation emerged last week. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Commerce proposed a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma sector. Just two days after that, the Prime Minister of India vetoed the joint opposition of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and the Ministry of Health to clear the way for all pending pharma FDIs under the current policy.

On August 13, 2013, Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce laid on the Table of both the Houses of the Indian Parliament its 154 pages Report on ‘FDI in Pharmaceutical Sector.’

The damning report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee flags several serious concerns over FDI in brownfield pharma sector, which include, among others, the following:

1. Out of 67 FDI investments till September 2011, only one has been in green field, while all the remaining FDI has come in the brown field projects. Moreover, FDI in brown field investments have of late been predominantly used to acquire the domestic pharma companies.

2. Shift of ownership of Indian generic companies to the MNCs also results in significant change of the business model, including the marketing strategy of the acquired entity, which are quite in sync with the same of the acquirer company. In this situation, the acquired entity will not be allowed to use flexibilities such as patent challenges or compulsory license to introduce new affordable generic medicines.

The withdrawal of all patent challenges by Ranbaxy on Pfizer’s blockbuster medicine Lipitor filed in more than eight countries immediately after its acquisition by Daiichi-Sankyo is a case in point.

3. Serial acquisitions of the Indian generic companies by the MNCs will have significant impact on competition, price level and availability. The price difference between Indian ‘generics’ and MNCs’ ‘branded generic’ drugs could  sometimes be as high as 80 to 85 times. A few more larger scale brownfield takeovers may even destroy all the benefits of India’s generics revolution.

4. FDI inflow into Research & Development of the Pharma Industry has been totally unsatisfactory. 

5. FDI flow into brown field projects has not added any significant fresh capacity in manufacturing, distribution network or asset creation. Over last 15 years, MNCs have contributed only 5 per cent of the gross fixed assets creation, that is Rs 3,022 crore against Rs 54,010 crore by the domestic companies. Further, through brownfield acquisitions significant strides have not been made by the MNCs, as yet, for new job creation and technology transfer in the country.

6. Once a foreign company takes over an Indian company, it gets the marketing network of the major Indian companies and, through that network, it changes the product mix and pushes the products, which are more profitable and expensive. There is no legal provision in India to stop any MNC from changing the product mix.

7. Though the drug prices may not have increased significantly after such acquisitions yet, there is still a lurking threat that once India’s highly cost efficient domestic capacity is crushed under the weight of the dominant force of MNCs, the supply of low priced medicines to the people will get circumvented.

8. The ‘decimation’ of the strength of local pharma companies runs contrary to achieving the drug security of the country under any situation, since there would be few or no Indian companies left having necessary wherewithal to manufacture affordable generics once a drug goes off patent or comply with a Compulsory License (CL).

9. Current FIPB approval mechanism for brownfield pharma acquisitions is inadequate and would not be able to measure up to the challenges as mentioned above.

The Committee is also of the opinion that foreign investments per se are not bad. The purpose of liberalizing FDI in pharma was not intended to be just about takeovers or acquisitions of domestic pharma units, but to promote more investments into the pharma industry for greater focus on R&D and high tech manufacturing, ensuring improved availability of affordable essential drugs and greater access to newer medicines, in tandem with creating more competition. 

Based on all these, The Committee felt that FDI in brown field pharma sector has encroached upon the generics base of India and adversely affected Indian pharma industry. Therefore, the considered opinion of the Parliamentary Committee is that the Government must impose a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma projects.

PM clears pending pharma FDI proposals:

Unmoved by the above report of the Parliamentary Committee, just two days later, on August 16, 2013, the Prime Minister of India, in a meeting of an inter-ministerial group chaired by him, reportedly ruled that the existing FDI policy will apply for approval of all pharmaceutical FDI proposals pending before the Foreign Investments Promotion Board (FIPB). Media reported this decision as, “PM vetoes to clear the way for pharma FDI.”

This veto of the PM includes US $1.6-billion buyout of the injectable facility of Agila Specialties, by US pharma major Mylan, which has already been cleared by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

This decision was deferred earlier, as the DIPP supported by the Ministry of Health had expressed concerns stating, if MNCs are allowed to acquire existing Indian units, especially those engaged in specialized affordable life-saving drugs, it could possibly lead to lower production of those essential drugs, vaccines and injectibles with consequent price increases. They also expressed the need to protect oncology facilities, manufacturing essential cancer drugs, with assured supply at an affordable price, to protect patients’ interest of the country.

Interestingly, according to Reserve Bank of India, over 96 per cent of FDI in the pharma sector in the last fiscal year came into brownfield projects. FDI in the brownfield projects was US$ 2.02 billion against just US$ 87 million in the green field ventures.

Fresh curb mooted in the PM’s meeting:

In the same August 16, 2013 inter-ministerial group meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, it was also reportedly decided that DIPP  will soon float a discussion paper regarding curbs that could be imposed on foreign takeovers or stake purchases in existing Indian drug companies, after consultations with the ministries concerned.

Arguments allaying apprehensions:

The arguments allaying fears underlying some of the key apprehensions, as raised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, are as follows:

1. FDI in pharma brownfield will reduce competition creating an oligopolistic market:

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands. Even after, all the recent acquisitions, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott enjoys a market share of just 6.6%. The Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter groups and not the individual companies) contribute just over 40% of the IPM (Source: AIOCD/AWACS – Apr. 2013). Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination.

In a scenario like this, the apprehension of oligopolistic market being created through brownfield acquisitions by the MNCs, which could compromise with country’s drug security, needs more informed deliberation.

2. Will limit the power of government to grant Compulsory Licensing (CL):

With more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical producers in India, there is expected to be enough skilled manufacturers available to make needed medicines during any emergency e.g. during H1N1 influenza pandemic, several local companies stepped forward to supply the required medicine for the patients.

Thus, some argue, the idea of creating a legal barrier by fixing a cap on the FDIs to prevent domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative otherwise, just from the CL point of view may sound unreasonable, if not protectionist in a globalized economy.

3.  Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

Equity holding of a company is believed by some to have no bearing on pricing or access, especially when medicine prices are controlled by the NPPA guidelines and ‘competitive pressure’.

In an environment like this, any threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing, is unlikely, especially when the medicine prices in India are cheapest in the world, cheaper than even Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (comment: whatever it means).

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries: 

A study of the United Nations has indicated that large global companies still consider India as their third most favored destination for FDI, after China and the United States.

However, with the attraction of FDI of just US$ 32 billion in 2011, against US$ 124 billion of China, US$ 67 billion of Brazil and US$ 53 billion of Russia during the same period, India still draws the lowest FDI among the BRIC countries.

Commerce Minister concerned on value addition with pharma FDI:

Even after paying heed to all the above arguments, the Commerce Minister of India has been expressing his concerns since quite some time, as follows:

“Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the pharma sector has neither proved to be an additionality in terms of creation of production facilities nor has it strengthened the R&D in the country. These facts make a compelling case for revisiting the FDI policy on brownfield pharma.”

As a consequence of which, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly been opposing FDI in pharma brownfield projects on the grounds that it is likely to make generic life-saving drugs expensive, given the surge in acquisitions of domestic pharma firms by the MNCs.

Critical Indian pharma assets going to MNCs:

Further, the DIPP and the Ministry of Health reportedly fear that besides large generic companies like Ranbaxy and Piramal, highly specialized state-of-the-art facilities for oncology drugs and injectibles in India are becoming the targets of MNCs and cite some examples as follows:

  • Through the big-ticket Mylan-Agila deal, the country would lose yet another critical cancer drug and vaccine plant.
  • In 2009 Shantha Biotechnics, which was bought over by Sanofi, was the only facility to manufacture the Hepatitis B vaccine in India, which used to supply this vaccine at a fraction of the price as compared to MNCs.
  • Mylan, just before announcing the Agila deal, bought over Hyderabad based SMS Pharma’s manufacturing plants, including some of its advanced oncology units in late 2012.
  • In 2008, German pharma company Fresenius Kabi acquired 73 percent stake in India’s largest anti-cancer drug maker Dabur Pharma.
  • Other major injectable firms acquired by MNCs include taking over of India’s Orchid Chemicals & Pharma by Hospira of the United States.
  • With the US market facing acute shortage of many injectibles, especially cancer therapies in the past few years, companies manufacturing these drugs in India have become lucrative targets for MNCs.

An alternative FDI policy is being mooted:

DIPP reportedly is also working on an alternate policy suggesting:

“It should be made mandatory to invest average profits of last three years in the R&D for the next five years. Further, the foreign entity should continue investing average profit of the last three years in the listed essential drugs for the next five years and report the development to the government.”

Another report indicated, a special group set up by the Department of Economic Affairs suggested the government to consider allowing up to 49 per cent FDI for pharma brownfield investments under the automatic route.However, investments of more than 49 per cent would be referred to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

It now appears, a final decision on the subject would be taken by the Prime Minister after a larger inter-mimisterial consultation, as was decided by him on August 14, 2013.

The cut-off date to ascertain price increases after M&A:

Usually, the cut off point to ascertain any price increases post M&A is taken as the date of acquisition. This process could show false positive results, as no MNC will take the risk of increasing drug prices significantly or changing the product-mix, immediately after acquisition.

Significant price increases could well be initiated even a year before conclusion of M&As and progressed in consultation by both the entities, in tandem with the progress of the deal. Thus, it will be virtually impossible to make out any significant price changes or alteration in the product-mix immediately after M&As.

Some positive fallouts of the current policy:

It is argued that M&As, both in ‘Greenfield’ and ‘Brownfield’ areas, and joint ventures contribute not only to the creation of high-value jobs for Indians but also access to high-tech equipment and capital goods. It cannot be refuted that technology transfer by the MNCs not only stimulates growth in manufacturing and R&D spaces of the domestic industry, but also positively impacts patients’ health with increased access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines. However, examples of technology transfer by the MNCs in India are indeed few and far between.

This school of thought cautions, any restriction to FDI in the pharmaceutical industry could make overseas investments even in the R&D sector of India less inviting.

As listed in the United Nation’s World Investment Report, the pharmaceutical industry offers greater prospects for future FDI relative to other industries.  Thus, restrictive policies on pharmaceutical FDI, some believe, could promote disinvestments and encourage foreign investors to look elsewhere.

Finally, they highlight, while the Government of India is contemplating modification of pharma FDI policy, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in pharmaceuticals. Between October 2010 and January 2011, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Need to attract FDI in pharma:

At a time when the Global Companies are sitting on a huge cash pile and waiting for the Euro Zone crisis to melt away before investing overseas, any hasty step by India related to FDI in its pharmaceutical sector may not augur well for the nation.

While India is publicly debating policies to restructure FDI in the ‘Brownfield’ pharma sector, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in their respective countries.  Between October 2010 and January 2011, as mentioned earlier, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Thus the moot question is, what type of FDI in the pharma brownfield sector would be good for the country in the longer term and how would the government incentivize such FDIs without jeopardizing the drug security of India in its endeavor to squarely deal with any conceivable  eventualities in future?

Conclusion:

In principle, FDI in the pharma sector, like in any other identified sectors, would indeed benefit India immensely. There is no question about it…but with appropriate checks and balances well in place to protect the national interest, unapologetically.

At the same time, the apprehensions expressed by the Government, other stakeholders and now the honorable members of the Parliament, across the political party lines, in their above report, should not just be wished away by anyone.

This issue calls for an urgent need of a time bound, comprehensive, independent and quantitative assessment of all tangible and intangible gains and losses, along with opportunities and threats to the nation arising out of all the past FDIs in the brownfield pharma sector.

After a well informed debate by experts on these findings, a decision needs to be taken by the law and policy makers, whether or not any change is warranted in the structure of the current pharma FDI policy, especially in the brownfield sector. Loose knots, if any, in its implementation process to achieve the desired national outcome, should be tightened appropriately.

I reckon, it is impractical to expect, come what may, the law and policy makers will keep remaining mere spectators, when Indian Pharma Crown Jewels would be tempted with sacks full of dollars for change in ownerships, jeopardizing presumably long term drug security of the country, created painstakingly over  decades, besides leveraging immense and fast growing drug export potential across the world.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only assess any  possible adverse impact of Mergers & Acquisitions on competition, not all the apprehensions, as expressed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and so is FIPB.

That said, in absence of a comprehensive impact analysis on pharma FDIs just yet, would the proposal of PSC to ban foreign investments in pharma brownfield sector and the PM’s subsequent one time veto to clear all pending FDI proposals under the current policy, be construed as irreconcilable internal differences…Or a clever attempt to create a win-win situation without ruffling MNC feathers?

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 Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

Posted on by
Reply

In November 2012, as a part of the ‘Campaign for Affordable Trastuzumab’ for the treatment of breast cancer, a citizens’ collective, reportedly sent an ‘Open Letter’ signed by around 200 cancer survivors, women’s groups, human rights and health rights campaigns and treatment activists from across the world to the Indian Prime Minister, urging him to ensure that the breast-cancer drug Trastuzumab is made affordable for treating cancer patients in the country.

Trastuzumab was named because of the following reasons:

  • Breast-cancer affects around 28-35 per cent of all cancers among women in major cities of India.
  • No other drug against HER+2 cancer can reduce patients’ mortality as Trastuzumab and reduce the spread of malignancy to other parts of the body.
  • Majority of women with HER+2 breast cancer do not have access to a complete course of the drug, which reportedly costs anywhere between Rs 6 to 8 lakhs (US$ 11,000 to US$ 14,500).

Reaping reach harvest: 

According to a media report, three homegrown Indian companies are currently developing biosimilar drugs to this protein molecule to reap a reach harvest arising out of the emerging opportunities.

However, this is expected to be an arduous, expensive and challenging endeavor, as the concerned companies will require pursuing a complicated biotechnological route to create follow-on biologics for Trastuzumab.

The ‘Trigger Factor’: 

It is widely believed that the above ‘Open Letter’ to the Prime Minister had prompted the Ministry of Health to form an ‘Experts Committee’ to evaluate the situation and make recommendations accordingly.

Thereafter, within a short period of time, in January, 2013, in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Ministry of Health forwarded the report of the above ‘Experts Committee’ to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) for its consideration to issue Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs namely, Trastuzumab (used for breast cancer), Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy) and Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia). Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), among other experts, also reportedly had participated as a member of this ‘Experts Committee’,

For a month’s treatment drugs like Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

 A ‘Technology Transfer’ discouraged: 

Such a rapid development in the CL landscape of India is indeed intriguing, especially after a voluntary announcement by Roche in 2012 that it will produce Trastuzumab and Rituximab in India through transfer of technology to an Indian contract manufacturer.

Consequently for a month’s treatment, the price of Trastuzumab will come down from around US$ 2,000 to US$ 1, 366, i.e. by 31 percent and Rituximab from around US$ 1,456 to US$ 682 i.e. by 53 percent. This was reportedly announced by none other than the Minister of State of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India Mr. Srikant Jena.

Despite this voluntary decision of technology transfer and price reduction of two life saving drugs in India by Roche, reported Government consideration for grant of CL for Trastuzumab, without getting engaged in any form of a win-win dialogue with the Company, could ultimately prove to be counter productive and may discourage further technology transfer of expensive patented drugs to India.

Increasing incidence of cancer in India: 

Cancer is just not a dreaded disease, but also making a devastating impact, financial and otherwise, on the lives and families of thousands of sufferers in India.

According to ‘The Lancet’, published on 28 March 2012, in India 556 400 people died of cancer only in 2010.

The paper also comments that only half of the estimated 9.8 million total deaths per year is captured by the CRS in India, fewer than 4 percent are medically certified, while more than 75 percent of deaths occur at home.

The Lancet study clearly highlights that most cancer patients in India die without medical attention and drugs. Cancer is, therefore, increasingly becoming a public sensitive disease area with high socioeconomic impact in the country. High treatment cost of this near terminal disease is beyond reach of majority of population in the country.

In a written reply to a question in the ‘Upper House’ of the Indian Parliament, the Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare on March 4, 2012 said that according to “Three Year Report on Population Based Cancer Registries 2006 – 08″ of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the estimated numbers of cancer patients for 2015 and 2020 are 1.16 million and 1.27 million respectively. There is a gradual rise in the prevalence of cancer in India, though the government has initiated several measures in this area.

High incidence of breast cancer: 

As per a recent report, an estimated 1, 00,000 – 1, 25,000 new patients suffer from breast cancer every year in India and this number is expected to double by 2025.

Government is mulling CL for NCD: 

Currently the DIPP appears to be planning to extend the provision of Compulsory License  (CL) beyond cancer drugs to other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) in the country, like diabetes. 

Domestic Pharma Association supports the move: 

A major domestic pharmaceutical industry association, as per media reports, supports this move by clearly articulating, “Over the years, more deaths are taking place on account of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) than communicable ones. It is, therefore, natural that this provision (CL) will be used for NCDs as well.”

UN declaration on NCD provides flexibilities in TRIPS Agreement: 

Experts believe that this new move on CL for drugs related to NCDs is a consequence of India’s signing the United Nation (UN) declaration on the prevention of NCDs in the country by, among others, using flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement to increase availability of affordable drugs for such diseases.

The Government has already launched a “National Program for Prevention & Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardio Vascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS)” as a pilot project covering 150 million people in 100 inaccessible and most backward districts during the financial year 2011-2012 at a cost of US$ 275 million.

Socio-economic impact of NCDs in India: 

Indian Journal of Community Medicine (IJCM) in an article titled, “Social and Economic Implications of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India” has highlighted, among others as follows:

  • NCDs account for 62 percent of the total disease burden in India with a significant ascending trend both in terms of overall mortality and morbidity.
  • This burden is likely to increase in the years to come.
  • Due to chronic nature of the disease and technological advancements in care, costs of treatment are high leading to access barriers, or ‘catastrophic expenditures’ for those who undergo treatment.
  • There are evidences of greater financial implications for the poorer households suffering from NCDs.
  • Most estimates suggest that the NCDs in India account for a significant economic burden ranging from 5 to 10 percent of GDP.
  • An urgent multi-sectoral Government action is strongly warranted both on grounds of economic arguments and social justice.
  • Action needs focus on addressing the social determinants of NCDs for prevention and strengthening of health systems to meet the challenge.
  • A framework for monitoring, reporting, and accountability is essential to ensure that the returns on investments in NCDs meet the targets and expectations set in the national plans.

Innovator companies contemplating legal recourse: 

Reacting to all these developments, the global pharmaceutical companies have, once again, expressed strong commitment to protect and continue to defend their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) within the legal framework of India.

They have also reiterated their belief that a robust IPR regime will encourage innovation in the country making available more and more innovative drugs for the patients in India.

An interesting WHO report on a ‘robust IPR regime’: 

In this regard a World Health Organization (WHO) research report titled “Patents, Price Controls and Access to New Drugs: How Policy Affects Global Market Entry” makes some interesting observations on a ‘robust IPR regime’.

The report highlights the following four important points:

1. Increasing the strength of a patent system to include long-term protection on pharmaceutical products appears to spur market entry mostly in the high-income countries.

For the low- and middle-income countries that are currently being encouraged to move to stronger protection through trade policies, the evidence that extending protection enhances access to new pharmaceuticals is mixed.

2. There is some evidence that high level of protection might encourage more frequent entry of innovative products in the short term. However, in the longer term the same domestic capacity could well be an alternative source of entry of such drugs.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) holders frequently assert that the poor quality of enforcement in developing countries undermines the value of their patent rights. However, it is quite evident now that patent laws in these countries are at least broadly meaningful commensurate to their respective domestic requirements.

4. The standard argument on price regulation that it will dissuade market entry for innovative drugs appears to have more relevance among the high-income countries and not so for the poorer countries.

The authors further indicate:

“There we find that while price regulation makes it less likely that new drugs will be available quickly, it does not appear to prevent new products from being launched eventually.”

Conclusion: 

Following all these recent developments and weighing pros and cons, one could well imagine that pressure on the Government from various stakeholders for CL on drugs for Cancer and NCDs will keep mounting, unless an alternative measure like, ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ is put in place by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, sooner than later, in 2013.

The recent judgment of the ‘Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)’ on CL to Natco may further add fuel to this raging debate.

It is now quite clear from the Finance Minister’s speech on the ‘Union Budget Proposal’ for 2013-14 that eagerly awaited ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or ‘Free Distribution of Essential Medicines to all’ schemes will not be implemented, at least for now.

Thus in all probability, the ghost of CL will keep haunting the innovators in India unabated, unless an effective, scalable and sustainable model for improving access to patented drugs for majority of population in the country is put in place. This will call for demonstrative, innovative and constructive Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) initiatives, sooner. In this effort  all concerned should at first be aligned with the cause, in principle, and try to be a constructive partner to get it translated into reality together, rather than just playing the role of vociferous critics in perpetuity .

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.

‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ to ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’ – An evolving trend

Posted on by
Reply

The quest for moving away from conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ paving the way for unconventional individual patient-specific ones, may soon come to fruition. Dramatic progress in the research for developing ‘Personalized Medicines’ could soon offer a choice for individual ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’ with precisely predictable efficacy and safety, especially for the treatment of various intractable and dreaded diseases.

Sir John Bell, Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, adviser on genetics to the government and chair of its human genomics strategy group has reportedly said in early December 2012 that ‘Personalized Medicine’ for all could soon be a clear possibility, as everybody will be able to have their entire DNA make-up mapped for as little as £100 (Rs.8, 700 approx.).

This estimate seems to be quite realistic as Sir John said, the price of genome sequencing has fallen by 100,000-fold in 10 years and genetics being a key component of all common diseases, genome sequencing will help immensely in the use of new drugs, as well.

Raising a flag:

While watching the pursuit of excellence by the genetic scientists in the realm of disease treatment, some experts have reportedly been sounding a note of caution. They strongly feel that DNA code sequencing brings to light a “very real privacy concerns” of individuals.

GeneWatch UK, is an organization that investigate how genetic science and technologies will impact on our food, health, agriculture, environment and society. They have been strongly arguing, if genome sequencing is extended to entire population, individuals and their relatives could then be identified and tracked by matching their DNA with the genome stored in the respective health records. This move, as contemplated by them, could “wipe out privacy” with an impact on the society.

Thus, the ethical and social issues in the development of ‘Personalized medicines’ primarily in the area of genetic testing and consideration of race in the development of such medicines, these thought leaders feel, need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

That said, the Prime Minister of UK Mr David Cameron has reportedly said:

“By unlocking the power of DNA data, the NHS will lead the global race for better tests, better drugs and above all better care. We are turning an important scientific breakthrough into a potentially life-saving reality for NHS patients across the country. If we get this right, we could transform how we diagnose and treat our most complex diseases not only here but across the world, while enabling our best scientists to discover the next wonder drug or breakthrough technology.”

Increasingly more in development pipeline:

Rapid strides in pharmacogenomics bring in a promise of radically different ways of treating diseases, as major pharmaceutical companies of the world make progress in developing much more effective medicines designed to target smaller populations.

Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts University) in its publication named ‘Impact Report’, November/December 2010 articulated, “Bio-pharmaceutical companies are committed to researching and developing personalized medicines and within their development pipelines, 12% – 50% of compounds are personalized medicines.”

Experts envisage that over a period of time ‘Personalized Medicines’ will be targeted to biological/genomic profile of a patient or patient types to significantly improve the quality of treatment.

The definition:

The above report defines Personalized Medicines as “Tailoring of medical treatment and delivery of health care to individual characteristics of each patient, including their genetic, molecular, imaging and other personal determinants. Using this approach has the potential to speed accurate diagnosis, decrease side effects, and increase the likelihood that a medicine will work for an individual patient.”

Mainly due to all these reasons, ‘Personalized Medicines’ are expected to be an effective alternative to quite unwieldy current ‘blockbuster drug’ business model.

Makes a perfect fit:

The aim of ‘personalized medicines’ is, therefore, to make a perfect fit between the drug and the patient. It is worth noting that genotyping is currently not a part of clinically accepted routine. However, it is expected to acquire this status in the western world, very shortly.

Consequent changes and shifts:

This potential paradigm shift in the healthcare space would prompt similar changes in various disease diagnostic technologies, which will not only be able to detect a disease well before appearance of symptoms, but would also indicate which patients will best respond to or be adversely affected by which medications.

‘Personalized Medicines’ will in that process ensure a critical shift from the ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ to a ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’, which can be initiated even before the clinical manifestations of a disease are detected.

The technological march towards this direction is indeed risky and arduous one. However, the benefits that the humanity will accrue out of this disruptive innovation will far outweigh the risks in all forms.

Towards this direction:

  • The Economist, March 12-18, 2011 in its article titled “Toward the 15-minute genome” reported that ‘nanopore sequencing’ of human genome is now gaining momentum. This could make sequencing of entire genome of cancerous and healthy cells possible to accurately point out what has exactly changed in individual patients, enabling the oncologists to determine patient specific drugs for best possible results in each case, separately.
  • New cancer marker has been reported to aid earlier detection of the disease, where repetitive stretches of RNA are found in high concentrations in cancer cells.
  • A new blood test will accurately detect early cancer of all types with an accuracy of greater than 95%, when repeated the accuracy will even be even greater than 99%.
  • ‘Breast On A Chip’ will test nano-medical detection and treatment options for breast cancer.
  • A brain scan will detect the telltale “amyloid plaques” ,the protein fragments that accumulate between nerves in Alzheimer’s disease.

A difference that matters:

With ‘Personalized Medicines’ the health of a patient will be managed based on personal characteristics of the individual, including height, weight, diet, age, sex etc. instead of defined “standards of care”, based on averaging response across a patient group. Pharmacogenomics tests like, sequencing of human genome will determine a patient’s likely response to such drugs.

All these are expected to offer more targeted and effective treatment with much safer drugs, and in all probability at a lesser real cost. Such medicines will also help identify individuals prone to serious ailments like, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer and help physicians to take appropriate preventive measures, simultaneously.

Each patient is unique:

‘Personalized medicines’ in that process will focus on what makes each patient so unique, instead of going by the generalities of a disease.

To give a quick example, genetic differences within individuals determine how their bodies react to drugs such as Warfarin – a blood thinner taken to prevent clotting. It is of utmost importance to get the dosing right, as more of the drug will cause bleeding and less of it will not have any therapeutic effect.

‘Personalized medicines’, therefore, have the potential to usher in a revolutionary change, the way patients are offered treatment by the medical profession. Genomic research will enable physicians to use a patient’s genetic code to arrive at how each patient will respond to different types of available treatments.

In the field of cancer, genetic tests are currently being done by many oncologists to determine which patients will be benefited most, say by Herceptin, in the treatment of breast cancer.

Indian initiatives:

Some companies, both well known and little known, are making quiet collaborative progress in the genome sequencing area in India, which will ultimately make expensive treatments like cancer more affordable to many.

Other advantages:

The expected benefits from the ‘Personalized Medicines’, besides very early diagnosis as stated above, are the following:

1. More Accurate Dosing: Instead of dose being decided based on age and body weight of the patients, the physicians may decide and adjust the dose of the medicines based on the genetic profiling of the patients.

2. More Targeted Drugs: It will be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and market drugs for patients with specific genetic profiles. In that process, a drug needs to be tested only on those who are likely to derive benefits from it. This in turn will be able to effectively tailor clinical trials, expediting the process of market launch of these drugs.

3. Improved Healthcare: ‘Personalized Medicines’ will enable the physicians to prescribe ‘the right dose of the right medicine the first time for everyone’ without any trial or error. This would give rise to much better overall healthcare.

Reduced Clinical Trial cost:

Genome sequencing will help identifying a patient population, which will be far more likely to respond positively to the new treatment. In that process, if it reduces costs of clinical trial by even 5%, expected net savings for the industry towards clinical trial in real term will be significant.

With ‘personalized medicines’ the innovator companies will be able to significantly reduce both time, costs and the risks involved in obtaining regulatory approvals and penetrating new markets with simultaneous development of necessary diagnostic tests. Such tests will be able to identify patients group who will not only most likely to be benefited from such medicines, but also will be least likely to suffer from adverse drug reactions.

Therefore, considerable cost advantages coupled with much lesser risks of failure and significant reduction in the lead time for clinical trials are expected to make ‘personalized medicines’ much more cost effective, compared to conventional ‘blockbuster drugs’.

A sustainable business model:

Realization of deficiencies in the deep-pocket economics of ‘block buster drug R&D business model’ has made ‘personalized medicines’ a reality today. Large number of smaller and exclusive markets for ‘personalized medicines’ is also expected to be quite profitable for the pharmaceutical companies. On the other hand, better efficacy and safety profile of ‘personalized medicines’ will prove to be cost-effective in the overall healthcare systems.

However, smaller segmentation of the market may not leave enough space for the conventional ‘blockbuster model’, which is the prime mover of the global pharmaceutical industry, even today.

Reports indicate that some renowned global pharmaceutical companies like, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline are making good progress towards this direction through collaborative initiatives.

A different marketing ball game:

With ‘personalized medicines’ the ball game of marketing pharmaceuticals is expected to undergo a paradigm shift. Roche’s model of combining necessary diagnostic tests with new drugs will play a very important role in the new ball game.

Roche is reportedly ensuring that with accompanying required diagnostic tests, the new oncology products developed at Genentech can be precisely matched to patients.

Use in ‘Primary Care’:

Currently there is no widely successful model for use of ‘personalized medicines’ in a ‘primary care’ situation. However, it has been reported that in states like, Wisconsin in the U.S, initiative to integrate genomic medicines with ‘primary care’ has already been undertaken.

Scaling-up operations of such pilot projects will give a big boost to revolutionize the use of ‘personalized medicines’ for precision and targeted treatment for the ailing population.

Current Applications:

Though these are still the early days, initial benefits of ‘personalized medicines’ are now being reported in many areas like:

  • Genetic analysis of patients dealing with blood clots: Since 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been recommending genotyping for all patients being assessed for therapy involving Warfarin.
  • Colorectal cancer: For colon cancer patients, the biomarker that predicts how a tumor will respond to certain drugs is a protein encoded by the KRAS gene, which can now be determined through a simple test.
  • Breast cancer: Women with breast tumors can now be effectively screened to determine which receptors their tumor cells contain.

Above applications of ‘personalized medicines’ will help saving not only significant expenses, but also precious time, which is usually spent for ‘trial-and-error treatments’. In addition, this approach also helps clinicians to determine quickly which therapies are most likely to succeed.

A truly patient centric treatment approach:

Generally speaking, unlike conventional ‘one size fits all’ type treatment approach, where same medicine with varying efficacy is tried on a large number of patients with equally varying rates of failure, ‘personalized medicines’ in true sense starts with the patients.

This may not necessarily mean unique treatment for each patient every time. With ‘personalized medicine’-based treatment approach, depending on biological, genetic and genomic characteristics, patients can be divided into groups and targeted treatment with specific drugs showing most efficacy and least side-effects can be worked out for each of these groups. Hence ‘personalized medicines’ by all means are truly patient centric.

Conclusion:

One of the key issues today in the realm of conventional ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ is that lot many drugs do not work on significantly large number of patients with same efficacy and safety standards. ‘Personalized medicines’ will be able to address this issue with right diagnosis, ensuring treatment with the right medicine in right doses for the right type of patients.

Though in Europe and to some extent in the US, ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’ approaches with ‘personalized medicines’ have already been initiated, these are still early days for this novel concept to get translated into reality for wider use.

Lot many grounds may still need to be covered especially in the areas of medical research and also to work out the regulatory pathways for ‘personalized medicines’ in healthcare by the pioneers of this great concept.

That said, the evolving transition from the conventional ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ to unconventional ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’ seems to be irreversible now.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.