MNCs to Challenge MNC Patents in India: Boon for Patients?

Posted on September 16, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Close on the heels of a reasonably successful patent challenge by the German pharma Multinational Corporation (MNC) Fresenius Kabi for the breast cancer drug Tykerb of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in India, another MNC Mylan, with its headquarter in the United states, has explicitly expressed its plan to challenge frivolous and weak patents of MNCs, in conformance to the Indian Patents Act, to provide less expensive generic drugs to patients.

This is indeed another interesting development, which could possibly culminate into robust, cleverly crafted and fiercely competitive business strategies of many other MNCs, revolving around patent challenges in India, for business excellence in the country.

Mylan develops new products in India:

Mylan is now reportedly working with the local Indian player Biocon to develop a strong new product pipeline, which would include a portfolio of biosimilar drugs. The advanced breast cancer drug Trastuzumab (Herceptin) of Roche is just one of many in the list. Mylan has also expressed its intent to market ‘Herceptin’ at a price, which will be affordable to many more cancer patients of India.

It is worth mentioning that some other domestic Indian companies like, Reliance Life Sciences and BDR Pharma are reportedly working on generic Trastuzumab (Herceptin), besides some South Korean bio-pharma players.

Mylan has also inked an agreement with Biocon to develop and market an insulin drug derived from the global major Sanofi’s expensive patented product Lantus.

All these developments apparently augur well for India.

Weak patent?…Recapitulating Herceptin saga in india:

Though Roche decided to discontinue its patent rights for Herceptin in India, it reportedly lost this patent earlier in Europe. This vindicates the views of experts that Herceptin patent was weak, as it would probably not be able to clear the litmus test of a stringent patent scrutiny. The report, therefore, argues that core reason for withdrawal of Herceptin patent in India by Roche cannot be attributed, even remotely, to the ‘weak IP ecosystem’ in India.

To extend the patent right for Herceptin, in early September 2013, Roche reportedly announced that the European Commission has approved a new formulation of its breast cancer drug Herceptin, which allows the medicine to be administered more quickly.

A tough market, yet difficult to ignore:

For global innovator pharma majors, India still remains a tough market to crack, despite strong overseas political pressures of various types, intense collective and individual lobbying efforts and deployment of expensive global ‘Public Relations’ firms working in full steam.

Their strong success factors of the yesteryears in this area, which worked so well across the world, are getting mostly negated by the ‘evolving patient friendly IP laws’ of the emerging economies.

Considering the vast business potential of the pharmaceutical market of 1.2 billion people in India, it is now envisaged by many, more like-minded MNCs will gradually jump into this fray with similar intent of patent challenges in conformance with the Indian Patents Act 2005.

If this scenario assumes a cascading effect on a broader canvas, ultimate beneficiary will be the ailing patients, having much greater access to more affordable newer drugs for many dreaded diseases, like cancer.

Other countries too tightening up the patent laws:

To provide less-expensive generic drugs to patients, other countries also have started following India to leash astronomical prices for new drugs, especially for life threatening and intensely debilitating ailments. China has reportedly strengthened its compulsory licensing provisions already for dealing with costly drugs, paving the way to force entry of generic drugs in the Chinese market well before patent expiry.

In 2012, Indian Patent Office, in a path breaking decision granted Compulsory License (CL) to a local company, Natco Pharma, to manufacture the patented kidney-cancer drug, Nexavar of Bayer reportedly at a cost of Rs. 8,800 (around US$ 176) for a month’s therapy of 120 capsule against Bayer’s price of Rs. 280,000 (around US$ 5,600) for the same.

This is the first-ever case of CL granted in India thus far to make life saving drugs affordable to patients.

On September 3, 2012, the Indonesian government took the unprecedented step of overriding the patents on seven HIV and hepatitis treatments, citing urgent need to improve patient access. These drugs were reportedly beyond the reach of most of the patients in Indonesia.

Thailand has also used this provision more than once, and countries like, Brazil has reportedly threatened quite often for invoking CL during price negotiations of such drugs with global pharma majors.

Winds of Change in South Africa:

Now South Africa has also exhibited its firm intent to have a tight leash on the grant of pharmaceutical patents of all types.

A recent report indicates that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of the Government of South Africa is calling for comments on its proposed ‘National Policy on Intellectual Property’ by October 4, 2013, which if implemented, would significantly curb patent evergreening and expand production of generics.

The same report mentions that at present, South Africa does not examine patent applications. Instead, the system allows pharmaceutical companies to obtain multiple patents on the same drug, even for inventions, which do not fall under the country’s definition of innovation. This allows the pharma players to extend their respective patent lives, blocking competition and charging exorbitant prices.

The report also points out, while in 2008, South Africa granted 2,442 pharmaceutical patents, Brazil approved only 278 in the 5 years between 2003 and 2008.

Patents revoked in India:

Since November 2010 following 8 MNC patents have been revoked in India after respective patent challenges:

Combigan and Ganfort of Allergan (for specified eye conditions)
Tykerb of GSK (for breast cancer)
Sutent of Pfizer (for liver and kidney cancer)
Pegasys of Roche (for hepatitis C)
Iressa of AstraZeneca (Anti-cancer)
Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension of Merck & Co (Anti-asthma)
Dulera of Novartis (Anti-asthma)

China and Brazil revoked patents:

In August 2013, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc.

Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

Top 10 ‘jaw-dropping’ most expensive medicines of the world:

No.	Name	Disease	Price US$ /Year
1.	ACTH	Infantile spasm	13,800,00
2.	Elaprase	Hunter Syndrome	657,000
3.	Soliris	Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria	409,500
4.	Nagalazyme	Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome	375,000
5.	Folotyn	T-Cell Lymphoma	360,000
6.	Cinryze	Hereditary Angioedema	350,000
7.	Myozyme	Pompe	300,000
8.	Arcalyst	Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome	250,000
9.	Ceredase / Cerezyme	Gaucher Disease	200,000
10.	Fabrazyme	Fabry Disease	200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is, protests against such ‘immoral and obscene pricing’ have started mounting, which are expected to have a snow-balling effect in the years ahead.

Mounting global protests:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Emerging markets – the Eldorado:

Competition within MNCs is expected to be even more fierce in the coming years as the developed markets continue to slow down, as follows, due to various reasons:

No.	Country	USD Bn.	% Share	Val. Gr.
	Global Pharma Market	961	100	5
	USA	329	38	-1
	Japan	112	13	0
	China	82	10	24
	Germany	42	5	-6
	France	37	4	-8
	Brazil	29	3	6
	Italy	27	3	-8
13.	India	14	1	11

Source: IMS Knowledge Link Global Sales 2012

This compelling scenario is prompting a change in the dynamics of competition within MNCs in the emerging pharmaceutical markets. The intents of Fresenius Kabi and Mylan, as enunciated above, I reckon, are just very early signals of this challenge of change.

All these would probably help turning the tide in favor of a seemingly win-win solution to bring down the prices of patented medicines at an affordable level, improving their access to vast majority of patients in the world.

Scope for more patent challenges in India:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded:

“This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Therefore, this process is expected to gain momentum in the years ahead as more MNCs join the fray of patent challenges, though driven primarily by business interests, but nevertheless, would benefit the patients, in the long run.

Further, as indicated in my previous columns, a study indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today. If challenged, some experts envisage, these patents may not be able to stand the scrutiny of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act.

In that sense, if the pharma MNCs with deep pockets, challenge these patents, there stands a good chance of making generic equivalents of those products at affordable prices for the Indian patients.

However, considering different degree and elements of market entry barriers, it appears, most of the patent challenges in India by the MNCs would probably be for biologics, as compared to small molecule chemicals.

Flow of newer drugs in the Indian market is now irreversible:

Taking stock of the emerging scenario, it appears, India will continue to see newer drugs coming into the market at a lower price in the years ahead, come what may. This flow seems to be unstoppable due to the following reasons:

Stricter implementation of Section (3d) of the Patents Act in India will ensure that NCEs/NMEs not conforming to this act will not be granted patents. In that case, those products will be open to generic copying by all, in India. Thus, in the absence of a market monopoly situation and fuelled by intense price competition, the patients will have access to those newer drugs.

More patent challenges of already granted patents could lead to revocation of more number of patents paving the way for entry of their generic equivalents.

If any MNC decides not to launch a new product in India having obtained its patent from the IPO, after three years, as per the statute, the same product becomes a candidate for CL in the country.

If any patented new product is launched without ‘reasonably affordable price’, again as per statute, the possibility of applications for CL coming to the IPO from the local players will loom large.

Hence, considering all these points, it appears, if the new products do not conform to the Indian Patents Act and are not launched with responsible pricing, the possibility of their generic entry at much lower prices is almost inevitable.

Conclusion:

Legal battle is expensive, even in India, and patent challenges are perhaps more expensive. All those new products, which are not patentable in India or may otherwise be challenged against other statutes of the Patents Act, will carry risks of getting caught in protracted litigations or generic competition.

MNCs with deep pockets coming forward with such intent, though may be based purely on their business interest in India, would ultimately offer spin-off benefits of affordable pricing, especially, to the patients suffering from life threatening and fast debilitating illnesses like, cancer.

That said, do all these developments unravel yet another way to improve access to newer medicines in India, signaling a boon for patients?

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 August 19, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

After Mollycoddling China Cracks Down on Pharma MNCs…But Why Now?

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Tapan Ray

In tandem with exemplary growth in the healthcare sector, China has started confronting with some consequential hazards in form of serious regulatory violations involving, besides many others, hospitals, pharmaceutical pricing and food and drug safety, which reportedly include contaminated milk powder and rat meat sold as mutton.

A recent report indicates, there are rampant kickbacks at various stages in the healthcare delivery process. For example, hospitals get kickbacks from drug and device companies, and hospital executives give a portion of these kickbacks to their doctors, involving even the pharma MNCs.

While looking back, in 1997, China took its first healthcare reform measures to mend the earlier not so good practices, when medical services used to be considered just as any other commercial product or services in the country. As a result, staggering healthcare expenses made Chinese medical services unaffordable and difficult to access for a vast majority of the local population.

In April 2009, China, a country with over 1.35 billion population, unfolded a blueprint of a new phase of healthcare reform to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. An incremental budgetary allocation of US$ 124 billion was made for the next three years to achieve this objective.

The core principle of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of Chinese healthcare reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will play a critical role.

This reform process will ensure availability of basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. It was also announced that priority would be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China. The general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public non-profit hospitals would continue to remain one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government has planned to set up diversified medical insurance systems to provide basic medical coverage to over 90 percent of the country’s population. In tandem, the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better availability of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Highly lucrative healthcare business destination:

New Chinese healthcare reform process carries an inherent promise of a large additional spending worth billions of US dollars every year catapulting China as one of the most lucrative healthcare markets of the world.

China’s healthcare spending has reportedly been projected to grow from US$ 357 billion in 2011 to US$1 trillion in 2020.

Consequently, this huge investment has started attracting a large number of global companies of various types, sizes and nationality competing for the right size of their respective pies of profits.

In that process, as the media reports highlight, global pharmaceutical players started fast increasing both their top-line revenue and bottom-line profits from the booming Chinese healthcare market.

Pharma MNCs growing bigger, outpacing local industry:

Another report highlighted, “60% of China’s healthcare stimulus money ended up going to non-Chinese multinationals”. Quoting a recent JP Morgan report the article indicated AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer realized over 30 percent growth from their China operations in the early part of 2011.

With the slow down of business in Europe and in the United States, even large global pharmaceutical players like, Bayer, Sanofi, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and many more have reportedly invested huge resources for capacity building in sales and distribution channels, local manufacturing and R&D.

Chinese Government woke-up:

Kick starting the reform process and in the face of high level of corruption, Chinese government initiated monitoring the effective management and supervision of healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the health services, together with basic medical insurance system, in good earnest.

It has been reported, though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which has been a common practice in China.

Violations meted with harsh measures:

Accordingly, with increased vigil in many of these areas since last couple of years, Chinese regulators have started cracking down on the culprits, who are being meted out severe and harsh punishments, consequently.

In 2012, seven public hospital directors were reportedly sent to jails for accepting kickbacks. One corrupt drug regulator was even executed along with two food-company managers involved in a poisoned milk scandal, as the report mentions.

Pharma MNCs targeted for alleged corrupt practices:

As stated above, the new healthcare reform measures include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

China has now reportedly targeted Multinational Companies (MNCs) for allegedly corrupt practices, including price-fixing, quality issues and consumer rights. This has forced some MNCs to defend their reputations in China where global brands often have a valuable edge over local competitors in terms of public trust.

Recently, in an effort to reduce drug prices, China has initiated probes involving 60 drug manufacturers.

According to a recent report, to make the pricing system for medicines more effective, the regulatory agencies in China are investigating the costs and prices of drug manufacturers including global pharma majors like:

GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK)
Merck & Co.
Novartis AG
Baxter International Inc.

The regulators are expected to go through the details of 27 companies for costs and 33 companies for pricing, as per the July 2, 2013 statement posted on China’s National Development and Reform Commission’s (NDRC) Evaluation Center of Drug Pricing.

The report highlights that a possible impetus for the NDRC to probe into pricing and costs of domestic and foreign drug companies was the announcement of China’s National Essential Drugs List in March, which increased the items on the list to 500 from 305.

Clampdown on government spending:

To exercise control on public expenditure towards drugs, the government has also reportedly clamped down on drug spending, placing some foreign drug makers’ products under price controls for the first time.

Since 2011, the Chinese Government has reduced the drug prices four times, including 15 percent reduction earlier in 2013, though the price reduction will be as much as 20 percent for the expensive drugs. At the same time, the government has reduced tax rebates on investments.

Mr. Chen Zhu, Health Minister of China has reportedly expressed that healthcare in China is still too expensive and there is still inadequate control over improper use of drugs in the country.

Another report indicates that Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories and Danone are under investigation in China for “monopolistic” pricing.

Crackdown on bribery and kickbacks:

An article in a similar context mentions that the “Chinese police started an investigation into the Chinese unit of the biggest pharmaceutical manufacturers of UK – GlaxoSmithKline and Senior executives at the unit are suspected of ‘economic crimes”.

On the same subject, a different news report also indicates, a senior Glaxo finance executive in Shanghai and employees in Beijing were detained as part of a corruption investigation.

Recently a Chinese Security Ministry official has reportedly said that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) executives in China have confessed to bribery and tax violations.

The same report quoting the ministry highlighted that the case against GSK involved a large number of staff and a huge sum of money over an extended period of time, with bribes offered to Chinese government officials, medical associations, hospitals and doctors to boost sales and prices. Concerned executives also used fake receipts in unspecified tax law violations.

Interestingly, earlier in 2012, Global CEO of GSK reportedly admitted that the company made “unacceptable” mistakes in “mismarketing” their antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin, which were the subject of a US$ 3 billion settlement with the Justice Department of the United States. At that time the CEO was reported to have said “very sorry” for the incident and “determined that this is never going to happen again.”

Another very recent news highlights that currently China is investigating at least four pharma MNCs as it widens its probe. Chinese enforcers had suggested that these pharma companies were using the same tactics to boost their businesses in the country.

It is now learnt that anti-trust body of China - State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) has also visited Shanghai office of UCB.

Happening elsewhere too:

Reports of similar alleged malpractices have started surfacing from elsewhere in the world too. For example, in Denmark, a country known for low incidence of corrupt practices, a Norwegian cardiologist was reportedly charged with taking 2 million kronor, or about US$ 350,000, from Merck and Pfizer, despite the fact, Danish law prohibits doctors from accepting money directly from the drug makers. The concerned doctor allegedly used the cash to buy expensive furniture and salmon-fishing holidays in his home country.

Last year, both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States reportedly charged Pfizer and its subsidiary Wyeth for paying millions of dollars in bribes to officials, doctors and healthcare professionals in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia during 2001-2007 in violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. They had also set hefty fines on the two to settle the charges.

Conclusion:

To effectively address serious and longer term healthcare related issues of the country, the Chinese Government has already started implementing its new healthcare reform measures earnestly. Possibly to maintain equity, stay on course and uproot corrupt practices, they have now started cracking down on the violators in all seriousness, be they are from within the country or beyond its shores.

So far as the pharma MNCs are concerned, such harsh measures are being taken for alleged malpractices probably for the first time ever of this scale and that too with full media glare.

All these measures coupled with pricing pressure and gradual rise of local Chinese players, would make the Chinese market increasingly challenging to pharma MNCs.

Some global players have already started feeling the scorching heat of tough Chinese measures. But China is too powerful a country and too lucrative a market for any entity to flex its muscle to stall the current juggernaut, at least, till the ‘Dragon’ achieves its objective of bringing down public healthcare expenditure to its expectations…Or is there more to the problem than meets the eye?

Thus, the key question emerges:

Why has China, after mollycoddling the pharma MNCs for so many years, now started cracking down on them so hard?

By: Tapan J. Ray

New Drug Price Control Order of India: Is it Directionally Right Improving Access to Medicines?

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The last Drug Policy of India was announced in 2002, which was subsequently challenged by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of the Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain in operation, pending formulation of a new drug policy as directed by the honorable court.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the New National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as the new policy would require to pass the judicial scrutiny.

In this article, I shall try to explore whether the new DPCO 2013 is directionally right in improving access to medicines for a vast majority of population in the country .

An overview:

As stated above, the new DPCO 2013 has just been notified after an agonizing wait of about 18 years, bringing all 652 formulations under 27 therapeutic segments of the National List of Essential Medicines under price control.

As prescribed in the Drug Policy 2012, in the new DPCO the cost based pricing mechanism has been replaced with a market-based one, where simple average price of all brands with a market share above 1% in their respective segments will be considered.

Only decrease in price and no immediate increase:

Companies selling medicines above the new Ceiling Prices (CP), as will be notified by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) soon, would have to slash prices to conform to the new CP level. However, those selling these scheduled drugs below the ceiling price will not be allowed to raise prices, resulting in significant price reduction of most essential drugs with price increases in none. Prices of all these formulations will be frozen for a year. Although a silver lining is that manufacturers will be permitted an annual increase in the CPs in line with the Wholesale Price Index (WPI).

The span:

The span of DPCO 2013 will cover approximately 18% of US$ 13.6 billion domestic pharmaceutical market. However, the total coverage will increase to around 30%, for a year, after coupling it with existing price controlled medicines, as these will continue with the current prices for a year.

No change in retail margin:

DPCO 2013 continues with the provision of DPCO 1995, fixing margin for the Retailers at 16% of Ceiling Price, excluding Taxes.

Benefit to consumers:

Indian consumers will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiaries of the new DPCO, as ceiling prices will now be based on roughly 91% of the pharmaceutical market by value, resulting upto 20% price reduction in 60% of the NLEM medicines. The prices of some drugs will fall by even upto 70%.

Overall impact:

In the short-term, Indian pharma market may shrink by around 2.3 per cent on implementation of the new policy, according to an analysis by market research firm AIOCD AWACS. The impact could be more pronounced for multinationals, given their premium pricing strategy for key brands. For the patients, anti-infective, cardio-vascular, gastro-intestinal, dermatology and painkillers would witness relatively steeper drop in prices.

However, despite initial adverse impact, higher volume growth over the next few years may help the pharmaceutical companies to recover and pick-up the growth momentum.

More transparent and less discretionary:

Moreover, the industry reportedly feels that the shift in the methodology of price control from virtually opaque and highly discretionary cost based system to relatively more transparent market based one, is directionally right and more prudent. They point out, even WHO in its feedback to the Department of Pharmaceuticals welcomed the intent to move away from cost-based pricing as it has been abandoned elsewhere.

The drafting of DPCO 2013 also appears to have reduced the discretionary criteria for the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to bare minimum.

Check on any essential drug going out of market:

DPCO 2013 has tried to prevent any possibility of an essential drug going out of the market without the knowledge of NPPA by incorporating the following provision in the order:

“Any manufacturer of scheduled formulation, intending to discontinue any scheduled formulation from the market shall issue a public notice and also intimate the Government in Form-IV of schedule-II of this order in this regard at least six month prior to the intended date of discontinuation and the Government may, in public interest, direct the manufacturer of the scheduled formulation to continue with required level of production or import for a period not exceeding one year, from the intended date of such discontinuation within a period of sixty days of receipt of such intimation.”

Patented Products:

DPCO 2013 does not include pricing of patented products, as the Department of pharmaceuticals (DoP) has already circulated the report of an internal committee, specially constituted to address this issue, for stakeholders’ comments.

Encourages innovation:

The new DPCO encourages innovation and pharmaceutical R&D offering significant pricing freedom. It states all locally developed new drugs, new drug delivery systems and new manufacturing processes will remain exempted from any price control for a five-year period.

Implementation:

Interestingly, the changes in prices will be effective after 45 days (15 days in the earlier DPCO 1995) from the date of respective CP notifications. This increased number of days is expected to allow the trade to liquidate stocks with existing prices.

However, the industry feels that its hundred percent implementation at the retail level, even within extended 45 days, for previously sold residual stocks lying in remote locations, could pose a practical problem.

The Government reportedly answers to this apprehension by saying, the provisions and wordings for implementation of new CPs in DPCO 2013 are exactly the same as DPCO 1995. Only change is that the time limit for implementation has been extended from 15 days to 45 days in favor of the industry. Hence, those who implemented DPCO 1995, on the contrary, should find effecting DPCO 2013 changes in the CPs much easier.

Opposite views:

Reduction in drug prices with market-based pricing methodology is significantly less than the cost based ones. Hence, consumers will be much less benefitted with the new system.

A large section in the industry reportedly does not co-operate with the NPPA in providing details, as required by them, to make the cost based system more transparent.

Serious apprehensions have been expressed about the quality of outsourced market data, which will form the basis of CP calculations.

Key challenges:

I reckon, there will be some key challenges in the implementation of DPCO 2013. These are as follows:

Accuracy of the outsourced market data based on which Ceiling Prices will be calculated by the NPPA.

In case of any gross mistakes, the disputes may get dragged into protracted litigation.

Outsourced data will provide details only of around 480 out of 652 NLEM formulations. How will the data for remaining products be obtained and with what level of accuracy?

The final verdict of the Supreme Court related to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the NPPP 2012, based on which DPCO 2013 has been worked out, is yet to come. Any unfavorable decision of the Honorable Court on the subject may push the NPPP 2012 and DPCO 2013 back to square one.

Conclusion:

Thus, DPCO 2013 should achieve the objectives of the Government in ensuring essential medicines are available to those who need them most by managing prices in the retail market and balancing industry growth on a longer term perspective. Interestingly, it also encourages indigenous innovation and R&D.

Thus, DPCO 2013, at long last, seems to be a well balanced one.

That said, making drug prices affordable to majority of population in the country is one of most important variables to improve access to medicines. This is an universally accepted fact today, though not an end by itself.

It is worth noting, price control of medicines since the last four decades have certainly been able to make the drug prices in India one of the lowest in the world coupled with intense cut-throat market competition. Unfortunately, this solitary measure is not good enough to improve desirable access to modern medicines for the common man due to various other critical reasons, which we hardly discuss and deliberate upon with as much passion and gusto as price control.

Therefore, industry questions, why despite so many DPCOs and rigorous price control over the last four decades, 47% of hospitalization in rural area and 31% of the same in urban areas are still financed by private loans and selling of assets by individuals?

Others reply with equal zest by saying, the situation could have been even worse without price control of medicines.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Innovation Absolutely Critical: But NOT Shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Significant value added innovation is the bedrock of progress of the pharmaceutical industry and is essential for the patients. This is a hard fact.

However, this current buzzword – ‘innovation’ can in no way be shorn from soft business necessities like, ethics, propriety, compliance and values… not just for longer term sustainability of business, but more in the larger interest of patients and patient groups.

Most importantly, ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ are not meant for mere display in the corporate websites like, any other business showpieces. These should neither be leveraged to create a false positive impression in the minds of the stakeholders with frequent PR blitzkriegs.

The creators of these soft ‘X factors’ are now being increasingly hauled up for gross violations of the same by the Governments in various parts of the world .These are not just legal issues. The net impact of all such acts goes much beyond.

In this article, I shall deliberate on these continuing and annoying issues both in global and local perspectives, quoting relevant examples at random.

The sole purpose of my argument is to drive home that all such repeated gross violations, as reported in the media, go against patients’ interests, directly or indirectly. None of these incidents, in any way, can be negated with stories of great innovations or with any other make of craftily designed shields.

Under increasing scrutiny in the developed world:

Ethics, propriety and business value standards of big pharma, besides various types of legal compliance, are coming under increasing stakeholders’ scrutiny, especially in the developed markets of the world.

Very frequently media reports from across the world, highlight serous indictments of the Government and even judiciary for bribery, corrupt business practices and other unbecoming conduct, aimed at the the global mascot for healthcare.

It is indeed flabbergasting to note that more and more corporates, with all guns blazing at the same time, publicize with equal zest various initiatives being taken by them to uphold high ethical standards and business practices, if not propriety, as the juggernaut keeps on moving forward, unabated.

The scope of ‘ethics and propriety’:

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts, propriety and value standards’ of a company usually encompasses the following, among many others:

The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders

Caring for the society and environment

Fiduciary responsibilities

Business and marketing practices

R&D activities, including clinical trials

Corporate Governance

Corporate espionage

That said, such scope should not be restricted to the top management, but must be allowed to percolate downwards in a structured manner, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to ‘codes of business ethics and corporate values’ are important to know, but the qualitative change in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

‘Business Ethics and Values’ in the globalized economy:

Globalization of business makes the process of formulating the ‘codes of ethics and values’ indeed very challenging for many organizations in many ways. This is mainly because, the cultural differences at times create a conflict on ethics and values involving different countries.

For this purpose, many business organizations prefer to interact with the cultural and religious leaders in the foreign countries, mainly to ascertain what really drives culturally diverse people to act in certain ways.

With the wealth of knowledge of the local customs and people, the cultural and religious leaders can help an organization to unify the code of ethics and values of the globalized business.

Such leaders can also help identifying the ‘common meeting ground of minds’ from a specific country perspective, after carefully assessing the cultural differences, which are difficult to resolve in the near term.

The ‘common meeting ground of minds’ within a given society, thus worked out, could form the bedrock to initiate further steps to strengthen global business standards of ethics and values of an organization.

OECD with USA started early enacting ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’:

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen. FCPA currently has significant impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

A dichotomy exists with ‘Grease Payment’:

OECD classified ‘Grease payment’ as “facilitating one, if it is paid to government employees to speed up an administrative process where the outcome is already pre-determined.”

In the FCPA of the US, ‘Grease Payment’, has been defined as “a payment to a foreign official, political party or party official for ‘routine governmental action,’ such as processing papers, issuing permits, and other actions of an official, in order to expedite performance of duties of non-discretionary nature, i.e., which they are already bound to perform. The payment is not intended to influence the outcome of the official’s action, only its timing.”

Many observers opine, ‘Grease Payments’ is an absolute dichotomy to the overall US policy for ethical standards and against corruption.

Currently besides US, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are the countries that permit ‘Grease payments’.

Notwithstanding, the governments of the US and four other countries allow companies to keep doing business without undue delay by making ‘Grease Payments’ to the lower government officials, such payments are considered illegal in most other countries, in which they are paid, including India.

In India such a business practice is viewed as bribery, which is not only perceived as unethical and immoral, but also a criminal offense under the law of the land. Even otherwise, right or wrong, ‘Grease Payments’ are viewed by a vast majority of the population as a morally questionable standard of ‘business conduct’.

Many companies are setting-up the ethical business standards globally:

While visiting the website of especially the large global and local companies, one finds that all these companies, barring a very few exceptions, have already put in place a comprehensive ‘code of business ethics and values’. Some of these companies have also put in place dedicated code compliance officers across the globe.

‘Practice as you preach’:

Despite all these commendable initiatives towards establishing corporate codes of business ethics and values, the moot question that keeps haunting many times and again: “Do all these companies ‘practice what they preach’ in real life?”

Instances are too many for breach in ethics, propriety and value standards:

The media is now increasingly reporting such instances of violations both locally and globally.

Some Indian examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

Criminal drug regulatory manipulation:

One of India’s top pharma players reportedly will pay a record fine of US$ 500 million in the US for lying to officials and selling badly made generic drugs.

The company has pleaded guilty to improper manufacturing, storing and testing of drugs, closing a year long civil and criminal investigation into the matter.

Compensation for deaths related to Clinical Trials not paid:

In 2011 the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly summoned nine pharma companies on June 6 to question them on the amount of compensation they have decided to pay the ‘victims of their clinical trials’, which is a mandatory part of any clinical trial, or else all other trials of these nine companies going on at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

Clinical Trial is another area of pharmaceutical business, especially in the Indian context, where more often than not, issues related to ethics and values are being raised. In an article titled, ‘Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns’ published by the World Health Organization (WHO) following observations have been made:

“The latest developments in India reflect a concerted effort on the part of the global public health community to push clinical trials issues to the fore in the wake of several high-profile cases in which pharmaceutical companies were shown to be withholding information from regulators.”

Alleged marketing malpractices:

In 2010, the Parliamentary Standing committee on Health reportedly expressed concern that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma players continues.

Congress MP Jyoti Mirdha sent a bunch of photocopies of air tickets to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to claim that doctors and their families were ‘beating the scorching Indian summer’ with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company.

30 family members of 11 doctors from all over the country reportedly enjoyed the hospitality of the concerned company.

Department of Pharmaceuticals reportedly roped in the Revenue Department under Finance Ministry to work out methods to link the money trail to offending companies.

Some global examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

United States Government sues a Swiss pharma major for alleged multi-million dollar kickbacks:

The United States Government very recently reportedly announced its second civil fraud lawsuit against a Swiss drug major accusing the company of paying multimillion-dollar kickbacks to doctors in exchange for prescribing its drugs.

Fraud fines:

Two largest drug makers of the world reportedly paid US$ 8 billion in fraud fines for repeatedly defrauding Medicare and Medicaid in the USA over the past decade.

Denigrating generics:

Another global pharma major reportedly has been recently fined US$ 52.8 million for denigrating generic copies.

Drug overcharging:

Another global drug major reportedly stirred an ethics scandal and paid US$ 499 million towards overcharging the US government for medicines.

Bribing doctors:

A top global pharma player reportedly paid total US$ 60.2 million to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

Another European pharma group reportedly was fined US$ 3bn after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children.

Concealment of important facts:

A judge in USA reportedly ordered a large pharma company to pay more than $1.2 billion in fines after a jury found that the company had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Off-label marketing:

A Swiss pharma major reportedly agreed to pay US$ 422.5 million to resolve an investigation into alleged off-label promotion of a drug, as well as civil allegations relating to five other products.

The U.S. Justice Department reportedly hit an American drug major with a US$ 322 million penalty for illegally promoting a drug before it received approval by the Food and Drug Administration for that condition.

Other illegal marketing practices:

Yet another European pharma group was reportedly fined USD 34 million by a court in the United States for illegal marketing practices for its medicine.

‘Illegal’ Clinical Trials:

It was revealed on May 17, 2013 that global pharmaceutical companies reportedly paid millions of pounds to former communist East Germany to use more that 50,000 patients in state-run hospitals as unwitting guinea pigs for drug tests in which several people died.

All these are some random examples of alleged malpractices associated with ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ in the pharma world, both local and global.

Middle and lower management becomes the ‘fall guy’:

It is interesting to note that whenever, such incidents take place, the fingers are usually pointed towards the middle or lower management cadre of the corporations concerned for violations and non-compliance.

Corporate or top management ownership of such seemingly deplorable incidents still remains confined within a ‘black box’ and probably a distant reality.

Public perception is not encouraging:

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, many business practices have still remained very contentious, despite many well-publicized attempts of self-regulation by the industry. The flow of complaints for alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down either, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation, penalty and severe indictments.

Government apathy in India:

Nearer home, the Government apathy, despite being pressured by the respective Parliamentary Committees and sometimes including judiciary in repose to Public Interest Litigations (PIL), has indeed been appalling, thus far.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has already circulated a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for stakeholders to comment on it. The final UCPMP, when it comes into force, if not implemented by the pharmaceutical players in its ‘letter and spirit’, may attract government’s ire in form of strong doses of regulatory measures. However, the moot question remains, will the UCPMP come at all?

Similar issues are there in drug regulatory areas falling under the Ministry of Health, especially in the clinical trial area. In this matter, very fortunately Supreme Court has intervened against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Thus, one can expect to witness some tangible steps being taken in this area, sooner than later.

Walking the talk:

The need to formulate and more importantly effectively implement ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ should gain increasing relevance in the globalized business environment, including in India.

It appears from the media reports, many companies across the world are increasingly resorting to ‘unethical behavior, impropriety and business malpractices’ due to intense pressure for business performance, as demanded primarily by the stock markets.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world. However, even if these are implemented in a country-specific way, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and owning responsibility at the top.

Conclusion:

Pharmaceutical innovation will continue to remain the launch pad for the industry growth in the battle against diseases of all types, forms and severity. However, that alone should in no way deserve to receive encouragement from any corner shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values.

Balancing pharmaceutical innovation with Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values, I reckon, will in turn help striking a right balance, to a considerable extent, between pharmaceutical innovation and public health interest for everyones’ satisfaction, mostly the patients.

Being equipped with the wherewithal to bring new drugs for the global population and being the fundamental source of growth momentum for the generic drug industry of the world, the innovator companies are expected to lead by setting examples in this area too. After all, as the saying goes:

“Caesar’s wife ought to be above suspicion. ‥Caesar himself ought to be so too”.

By: Tapan J. Ray

“New drug prices are Astronomical, Unsustainable and Immoral” – Anatomy of Unique Protests

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Yes. The quoted sentiment captured in the headline was reportedly voiced recently by many cancer specialists, including researchers and that too in the heartland of pharmaceutical innovation of the world– the United States of America.

These specialist doctors argued:

“High prices of a medicine to keep someone alive is profiteering, akin to jacking up prices of essential goods after a natural disaster”

Thus, not just in India, high prices of new drugs have started prompting large-scale protests in various types and forms across the world. This time the above unique protest assumed an extra-ordinary dimension, with the eye of the storm being in America.

The news item highlighted quite a different type of public protest by the top doctors, originated at a major cancer center located in New York and actively supported by over 120 influential cancer specialists from more than 15 countries spanning across five continents. These crusaders, though reportedly are working in favor of a healthy pharmaceutical industry, do think, especially the cancer drug prices are beyond the reach of many.

About 30 of these doctors hail from the United States and work closely, as mentioned earlier, with pharmaceutical companies engaged in R&D, including clinical trials.

As the cost of many life saving cancer drugs are now exceeding US$ 100,00 per year, all these doctors and researchers involved in the patients’ fights against cancer, are now playing a pivotal role in resisting such high drug prices vigorously.

Examples of astonishingly high drug prices:

In the area of treating rare diseases, the situation in every sense is mind-boggling. When a drug to treat such ailments comes with a price tag of over US$ 400,000 just for a year’s treatment, it is indeed astonishingly high by any standard. Some protestors even described the cost of these drugs as ‘obvious highway robbery’ in the guise of high R&D cost, while some others would continue to wonder as to why is not there a regulatory intervention for the same?

Here below are the top 10 most expensive drugs of the world…and just hold your breath:

World’s Most Expensive Medicines

No.	Name	Disease	Price US$ /Year
1.	ACTH	Infantile spasm	13,800,00
2.	Elaprase	Hunter Syndrome	657,000
3.	Soliris	Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria	409,500
4.	Nagalazyme	Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome	375,000
5.	Folotyn	T-Cell Lymphoma	360,000
6.	Cinryze	Hereditary Angioedema	350,000
7.	Myozyme	Pompe	300,000
8.	Arcalyst	Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome	250,000
9.	Ceredase / Cerezyme	Gaucher Disease	200,000
10.	Fabrazyme	Fabry Disease	200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is protests against such ‘immoral pricing’ have started mounting.

Protests against high drug prices for rare diseases:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

Yet another protest prompted cancer drug price reduction by half:

Another report highlights that last year physicians at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York refused to use a new colon cancer drug ‘as it was twice as expensive as another drug without being better’.

After this protest, in an unusual move, the manufacturer of this colon cancer drug had cut its price by half.

Even developed countries with low out of pocket expenditure can’t sustain such high prices:

With over one million new cancer cases reportedly coming up every year in India, there is an urgent need for the intervention of the Government in this area, especially for poor and the middleclass population of the country.

Further, it is worth noting that in countries like India, where out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare is very high, as public health system is grossly inadequate, such ‘astronomical prices’ will perhaps mentally knock-down many patients directly, well before they actually die.

That said, even in those countries where out-of-pocket expenditure towards healthcare is nil or very low, respective health systems, by and large, be it public or run by other payors, will still require paying for these high cost drugs, making the systems unsustainable.

Moreover, patients on assistance program of the pharmaceutical companies, reportedly also complain that these ‘Patient Access Programs’ are always not quite user friendly.

Protests spreading beyond cancer and rare disease treatment:

The concern for high drug prices is now spreading across many other serious disease areas, much beyond cancer. It has been reported that the issue of drug prices for various other disease areas was discussed in October 2012 at the Cowen Therapeutic Conference in New York. Many doctors in this conference felt that the drugs with no significant benefit over the existing therapy should not be included in the hospital formulary.

Pressure on diabetic and cardiac drug prices:

Various Governments within the European Union (EU) are now reportedly exerting similar pressures to reduce the costs of drugs used for the treatment of diabetes and cardiac disorders. These measures are now reportedly ‘putting the brakes on an US$ 86 billion sector of the pharmaceutical industry that’s been expanding twice as fast as the market as a whole’.

It is worth noting that each nation within EU is responsible for deciding the price of a new drug, though the European Commission approves drugs for all 27 members of the EU.

Flip side of the story – Commendable initiatives of some global companies:

There is another side of the story too. To address such situation some global companies reportedly are increasing drug donations, reinvesting profits in developing countries and adopting to a more flexible approach to intellectual property related issues. However, as per media reports, there does not seem to be any unanimity within the global companies on country-specific new drug pricing issue, at least not just yet.

To encourage pharmaceutical companies to improve access to affordable drugs for a vast majority of population across the world, an independent initiative known as Access to medicine index ranks 20 largest companies of the world. This ranking is based on the efforts of these companies to improve access to medicine in developing countries.

As indicated by the World Health Organization (WHO), this Index covers 20 companies, 103 countries, and a broad range of drugs, including vaccines, diagnostic tests and other health-related technologies required for preventing, diagnosing and treating disease.

The index covers 33 diseases, including maternal conditions and neonatal infections. The top 10 companies in ‘Access to Medicine Index’ ranking for 2012 are as follows:

No.	Company	Index
1.	GlaxoSmithKline plc	3.8
2.	Johnson & Johnson	3.6
3.	Sanofi	3.2
4.	Merck & Co. Inc.	3.1
5.	Gilead Sciences	3.0
6.	Novo Nordisk A/S	3.0
7.	Novartis AG	2.9
8.	Merck KGaA	2.5
9.	Bayer AG	2.4
10.	Roche Holding Ltd.	2.3

Source: http;//www.accesstomedicineindex.org/ranking

How high is really the high R&D cost?

A recent article published this month raises some interesting points on this subject, which I am quoting below:

No direct and transparent details are available from the industry for public scrutiny on the total cost of innovation.
What one does have access to are studies on the issue funded by pharmaceutical MNCs themselves.
For most NCEs, public-funded programs in the U.S largely invest in drug discovery.
In industry sponsored studies there is lack of transparency on the real costs of drug research and development.
Various tax benefits allowed under U.S. law are also ignored by industry studies.
Researching new drugs gives one Tax breaks to the extent of 50 per cent in the U.S. If one researches and markets an orphan drug for rare diseases, again, tax breaks are available to the tune of half the expenditure.

Further, a 2011 study by Donald W. Light and Rebecca Warburton published by the London School of Economics and Political Science indicates, “based on independent sources and reasonable arguments, one can conclude that R&D costs companies a median of US$ 43.4 million per new drug.”

It is interesting to note, the above cost estimate is a fraction of what is available from the industry source (over US$ 1.2 billion).

An interesting pricing model prescribed:

Another article recently published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) commented, while pharmaceutical companies reportedly spend billions on research, the actual cost of manufacturing a treatment (such as a pill) is minimal. This cost structure enables pricing flexibility.

The author suggests:

Adopt a smarter pricing model, where a company can charge the highest price that each customer is willing to pay.

To implement smarter pricing that saves more lives, and brings in more revenue, the pharmaceutical industry should create a straightforward grid that specifies the annual maximum a patient should pay out of pocket on drug expenses.

Key variables that determine this maximum include income, family size, and their other drug costs. Patients can submit this data to a third party agency to avail discounts based on these criteria.

However, implementability of this model, especially in the Indian scenario, seems to be challenging.

Conclusion:

Despite this gloom and doom, as ‘Access to Medicine Index 2012′ indicates, some pharmaceutical companies do want to become an integral part in finding out a solution to the access problem in general. Though, there are still many more miles to cover, some companies, though small in number, are demonstrably trying to improve access to health care in the developing countries of the world.

Rising prices of new drugs in general and for dreaded disease like cancer and other rare disorders in particular have now started reaching a crescendo, not just India, but in many other countries across the world and in various forms. Probably due to this reason, currently in Europe, regulators tend to be depending more and more in the concept of cost to efficacy ratios for new drugs.

It is interesting to note, the world is witnessing for the first time and that too in the developed world that a large number of specialist doctors are protesting against this trend, unitedly and with strong words.

The anatomy of initial phase of this groundswell, many would tend to believe, signals ushering in a new era of checks and balances to set right ‘astronomical, unsustainable and immoral new drug prices’ in the patients’ fights especially against dreaded diseases, the world over.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on March 11, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Tapan Ray

On January 12, 2013, one of the leading dailies of India first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

- Trastuzumab (or Herceptin, used for breast cancer),

- Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

- Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia).

For a month’s treatment drugs like, Trastuzumab, 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.

CL through a different route:

This time the government can reportedly notify its intent to grant CL under Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act 2005, only if any of the following three conditions are met:

- National emergency

- Cases of extreme urgency

- Public non-commercial use

After such Government notification in the gazette, any company interested in manufacturing any or all of these three products can directly apply for a CL to the Indian Patent Office (IPO).

This route is also expected to save usual litigation costs for the interested pharmaceutical players.

In such case, this will be the first time in India, when instead of pharmaceutical players applying for CL the Government on its own will trigger the CL process.

A situation like this will undoubtedly signal immense unpredictability in the IPR environment of the country.

Incongruent with the New Drug Policy 2012:

Interestingly, section 4(xv) of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) under ‘Patented Drugs’ states as follows:

“There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated 1st February, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

A media report also highlighted that an inter-ministerial group constituted for regulating prices of patented medicines in India has recommended using a per capita income-linked reference pricing mechanism for such products.

Thus, it is rather intriguing for many to fathom, why is the Government contemplating to grant CL on the above three anti-cancer drugs in January 2013, despite the decision of the Union Cabinet on the same in the new Drug Policy as recent as December, 2012.

Medicines come at the third stage of a medical treatment process:

For all patients, including the cancer victims, medicines will come at the earliest in the third stage of any treatment process, the first two or in some cases first three stages being:

A doctor’s intervention
Correct diagnosis through diagnostic processes
Surgical interventions (in some cases)

In India, there is no regulation to address the ‘cost issues’ of the first two or three stages of treatment, though there is a dire need to facilitate the entire process and not just one. Coming straight to cancer medicines considering these as the only ‘magic wands’ to improve access to treatment, may well be considered as ‘jumping the gun’ by the Government, if not an imprudent decision.

Skewed healthcare distribution in India:

Healthcare distribution in India is rather skewed and cancer treatment is no exception mainly because of the following reasons:

Medical personnel are concentrated in urban areas.
74 percent of doctors work in urban settlements, which is just around 1/4^th of the population.
61 percent of the medical colleges are in the 6 states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Pudicherry.
Whereas, just 11 percent of these are located in Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and the north-eastern states
369,351 government beds are in urban areas and a mere 143,069 beds in the rural areas.
Rural “doctors to population” ratio is lower by 6 times as compared to urban areas.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Huge healthcare Infrastructural Deficiencies:

In India, not just compared to the developed nations, even as compared BRIC countries, there is a huge infrastructural deficiencies as follows:

Indicators	Year	India	US	UK	Brazil	China
Hospital Bed Density(Per 10000 population)	2011	12	31	39	24	30
Doctor Density(Per 10000 population)	2011	6	27	21	17	14

(Source: WHO, World Health Statistics 2012)

0.6 doctors per 1000 population as against the global average of 1.23 suggests an evident manpower gap in the very first stage of a treatment process.
Number of beds available per 1000 people in India is only 1.2, which is less than half of the global average of 2.6.

Coming to Medical Colleges, the scenario is equally dismal, as follows:

Year	Number of Medical Colleges	Total Admissions
2011-2012	314	29,263
	No of dental Colleges	Total Admissions
2011-2012	289	2783

(Source: Medical Council of India & Dental Council of India)

Thus, India needs to open around 600 medical colleges (100 seats per college) and 1500 nursing colleges (60 seats per college) in order to meet the global average of doctors and nurses.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Shortages in other healthcare professionals:

It has been reported that a deficit of 64 lakh (6.4 million) allied healthcare professionals India with highest gaps in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, is a stumbling block in providing basic and quality healthcare to Indian population, as follows:

Healthcare Professionals	Shortage
Anesthetists and technicians	850,000
Dental staff	2.04 Million
Ophthalmologists and optometrists	127, 000
Rehabilitation specialists	1.8 Million
Medical laboratory technicians	61,000
Radiographers	19,000
Audiology and speech language specialists	7,500
Medical staff	230,000

(Source: Times Of India, December 20, 2012)

Is the Government ‘missing the woods for the trees’?

In a scenario like this, it is rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of compulsory licenses by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to patented medicines on a long term basis.

Not many CL granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions of CL in the Patents Act of many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date for the obvious reasons.

The details are as follows:

Country	Medicine	CL granted in:
Israel	Hepatitis B Vaccine	October 1995
Italy	Imipenem (antibiotic)	June 2005
Italy	Sumatriptan Succinate (migraine)	February 2006
Canada	Oseltamivir (influenza)	July 2006
Brazil	Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS)	May 2007
Thailand	Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer)	January 2008
India	Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer)	March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

An interesting paper:

However, I hasten to add that despite all these, the provision of CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has immense relevance, if invoked in the right kind of circumstances.

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

Right pricing of patented drugs is critical:

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of an IPR protected medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for such drugs still remains an important, yet complex and difficult issue to resolve, both locally and globally. Even in the developed nations, where an appropriate healthcare infrastructure is already in place, this issue comes up too often mainly during price negotiation for reimbursed drugs.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the US Department of Commerce after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries concluded that all of them enforce some form of price controls to limit spending on pharmaceuticals. The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as de facto market price.

In India, the Government is already mulling to put in place a similar mechanism for patented medicines, as captured in the NPPP 2012.

Further, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market. The values of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomics analysis are gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world to ensure responsible pricing of IPR protected medicines.

An evolving global trend:

To address such pricing issues, global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of the respective countries. This strategy includes India, as well.

Reference pricing model is yet another such example, where the pricing framework of a pharmaceutical product will be established against the price of a reference drug in reference countries.

An innovative approach to address patented products’ pricing:

To effectively address the challenge of pricing of patented medicines in India, Swiss drug major Roche, has reportedly entered into a ‘never-before’ technology transfer and manufacturing contract for biologics with a local Indian company – Emcure Pharma, for its two widely acclaimed Monoclonal Antibodies’ anti-cancer drugs – Herceptin and MabThera.

The report says that in the past, Emcure had signed licensing deals with US-based bio-pharmaceutical drug maker Gilead Life Sciences for Tenafovir and with Johnson and Johnson for Darunavir. Both are anti-HIV drugs.

In this regard, media reports further indicated that Roche would offer to Indian patients significantly cheaper, local branded versions of these two anti-cancer drugs by early this year. The same news item also quoted the Roche spokesperson from Basel, Switzerland commenting as follows:

“The scope is to enable access for a large majority of patients who currently pay out of pocket as well as to partner with the government to enable increased access to our products for people in need”.

Such ‘out of box’ strategies and initiatives by the global innovator companies could help keeping prices of patented products affordable to the Indian patients, improving their access significantly and making the likes of the current Government initiative on CL irrelevant.

Conclusion:

It is generally accepted that the provisions for CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has utmost relevance in terms of public health interest for all concerned.

However, keeping in view of recent policy announcement in the NPPP 2012, as approved by the Union Cabinet, on price negotiation for patented products, the reported Government move of invoking these provisions for three anti-cancer drugs is rather intriguing.

Moreover, even for the cancer patients, there seems to be a greater urgency to attend to basic healthcare infrastructural and delivery issues, besides providing Universal Health Coverage (UHC) as recommended by the High Level Experts Group (HLEG) constituted for this purpose by the Government.

Far encompassing critical decisions like grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Thus, recent news reports on the possibility of further grant of three more CLs could make the pharmaceutical business environment for the innovator companies in India more uncertain.

Demonstrable predictability for an innovation friendly environment is critical for the economic growth of India, which the Government should not lose sight of. Just upping the ante for more CL of anti-cancer drugs will not necessarily help improving access to cancer treatments in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: price

MNCs to Challenge MNC Patents in India: Boon for Patients?

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

After Mollycoddling China Cracks Down on Pharma MNCs…But Why Now?

New Drug Price Control Order of India: Is it Directionally Right Improving Access to Medicines?

Pharma Innovation Absolutely Critical: But NOT Shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values

“New drug prices are Astronomical, Unsustainable and Immoral” – Anatomy of Unique Protests

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

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India