Tag Archives: Pricing

Focus On All 3 Areas of Innovation For Affordable Access To Innovative Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Medical treatment has made astonishing advances over the years. But the packaging and delivery of that treatment are often inefficient, ineffective, and consumer unfriendly. This was articulated in an article on innovation in healthcare, published in the Harvard Business Review, way back, in its May 2006 issue.

Highlighting soaring healthcare cost, including ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, and its impact on public health, the paper recommended innovative solutions for every related aspect of health care. These encompass – healthcare delivery, unleashing the power of technology, and customer-centric business models. Interestingly, despite enormous investment in drug innovation, the access to affordable health care for all, continued over the years.

The consequential scenario was well articulated in another paper on rising consumerism among healthcare consumers, published in the Deloitte Review issue 16, 2015. It noted, the existing business models are increasingly being challenged by all concerned. The aim is to find new sources of value – as expected by patients and deliver them effectively with innovative approaches for better outcomes. This has, initiated a recalibration of the healthcare system, as it were, in many parts of the world, including many -both developed and developing countries, across the globe.

In this article, I shall try to explore this area, especially from the perspective of relevance of innovative business models for affordable access to innovative drugs in the new normal. Let me start with three basic innovation needs in the pharma business that may help chart out a meaningful pathway to attain this goal.

3 innovation areas to make health care better and cheaper:

In pharma industry, people mostly talk about product or treatment innovation. Although, this is of paramount importance to make healthcare more and more effective with time, but may not help save or heal more patients, commensurately.

Going by the ‘health care innovation catalog,’ as charted by the above Harvard Business Reviewarticle, ‘three kinds of innovation can make health care better and cheaper.’ These innovations are primarily related to:

  • Use of ‘technology’ to develop new products and treatments or to improve care
  • Bringing in innovative changes the ways ‘consumers’ buy and use healthcare.
  • Generating new ‘business models’, particularly those that involve the horizontal or vertical integration of separate health care organizations or activities.

As I have deliberated in the past, related to the first two areas, this discourse will deliberate on the third type of innovation to explore the above specified area. Let me hasten to add that several studies published in the later dates, echoed similar approach.

Subsequent studies reinforce the point:

One such example, is the paper titled ‘Innovative Approaches to Increase Access to Medicines in Developing Countries’, published in the Frontiers in Medicine on December 07, 2017. This study also captured: ‘Access to essential medicines is problematic for one third of all persons worldwide. The price of many medicines (i.e., drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics) is unaffordable to the majority of the population in need, especially in least-developed countries, but also increasingly in middle-income countries.’

The paper highlighted, several innovative approaches, based on partnerships, intellectual property, and pricing, can further stimulate innovation, promote healthcare delivery, and reduce global health disparities, significantly. It underscored: ‘No single approach suffices, and therefore stakeholders need to further engage in partnerships promoting knowledge and technology transfer in assuring essential medicines to be manufactured, authorized, and distributed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in an effort of making them available at affordable and acceptable conditions.’

Changing business model concept gaining steam during Covid pandemic:

The issue of affordable access to innovative medicines drew attention of all stakeholders, even the common man, during the Covid pandemic – more than ever before. Several publications raised a flag on this barrier to public health, especially amid a pandemic or epidemic like situation.

One of these papers, titled ‘COVID-19 and the global public health: Tiered pricing of pharmaceutical drugs as a price-reducing policy tool’, was published in the Journal of Generic Medicines, on October 07, 2020. The paper emphasized, COVID-19 has raised serious concerns about affordable and equitable access to critically needed innovative medicines and other health technologies. It pointed out: ‘Patent exclusivities add to the cost of healthcare by allowing supra-competitive prices of protected technologies’, it commented. At the same time, ‘the prices and availability of drugs also depend on certain other factors that are not related to IP protection.’

Here comes the concept of ‘differential pricing’ or ‘tiered pricing’. This is a voluntary price-reducing policy option of the innovator to sell innovative drugs at lower prices in developing countries – compared to developed nations. The study articulated, more and more innovators imbibing this option in the future, could be a way forward to address for the future. Could it be a win-win solution for this critical issue?

Is it a win-win solution to this critical issue?

Since, at least, the last decade, the concept of differential pricing or tiered pricing ‘has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to these life-saving products.’ This was also noted in the paper - ‘A critical analysis of tiered pricing to improve access to medicines in developing countries,’ published in the journal Globalization and Health, on October 12, 2011.

Even at that time, the paper said: ‘International tiered pricing has been proposed as an alternative to high prices when separable high- and low-to-middle-income markets exist for a medicine and when the seller exerts significant power over pricing, such as when there is limited or no competition due to patent protection, data exclusivity, or other market-entry barriers.’

Interestingly, despite above findings, tiered pricing has not been a widely followed concept in the old normal to ensure affordable access to life-saving innovative drugs, for all. One of its reasons could possibly be commercial considerations. Company specific business threshold of tiered pricing may not necessarily be able to offer a price that is equitable or affordable for all. That said, there are a few laudable initiatives of some major innovator companies in the past.

Some laudable past initiatives for affordable access to innovative drugs:

Since the beginning of this millennium, one can witness some laudable pricing initiatives for affordable access to critical, innovative drugs to save lives in developing countries and poorer nations. Let me give a few reported examples below:

  • Abbott Laboratories – the patent holder of lopinavir and ritonavir had initially announced a tiered price of $650 in 2001 for African countries and 16 non-African least developed countries. In 2002, the Company reduced the price to $500 for these countries and in August 2009 dropped it to $440 – slightly below the lowest generic price.
  • In 2001, Novartis offered “at-cost” tiered price of $2.40 per adult treatment course for artemether-lumefantrine FDC to WHO for developing countries After 5 years when a generic version of the same was available, Novartis decreased its tiered price to $1.80, thereafter to $1.50.
  • Eli Lilly’s two key DR-TB drugs, capreomycin and cycloserine were not widely available from other suppliers even after it went off patent. In 2002, Lilly transferred the drug manufacturing technology to several generic drug companies in TB-endemic countries. Eli Lilly’s tiered price has consistently remained below the generic prices for these drugs.

More examples of voluntary licensing during Covid pandemic:

Gilead signed non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with generic pharmaceutical manufacturers based in Egypt, India and Pakistan to manufacture remdesivir for distribution in 127 countries that face significant obstacles to healthcare access.

Notably, the licenses are royalty-free until the World Health Organization declares the end of the Public Health Emergency of International Concern regarding COVID-19, or until a pharmaceutical product other than remdesivir or a vaccine is approved to treat or prevent COVID-19, whichever is earlier.

On May 11, 2021, several media reports revealed that ‘US pharma giant Eli Lilly has issued royalty-free, non-exclusive voluntary licenses to three Indian drug makers – Cipla, Sun Pharmaceuticals and Lupin – to manufacture and distribute Baricitinib, which is being used to treat Covid-19.

As announced on October 27, 2021, the global drug major MSD and Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) entered into a voluntary licensing agreement to facilitate affordable global access for molnupiravir, an investigational oral COVID-19 antiviral medicine. This agreement will help create broad access for molnupiravir use in 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including India following appropriate regulatory approvals. The Indian companies, reportedly, include, Sun Pharma, Cipla, Dr Reddy’s, Emcure Pharma and Hetero Labs.

On November 16, 2021, Pfizer Press Release stated: Pfizer and MPP has signed a voluntary license agreement for Pfizer’s COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment candidate PF-07321332, which is administered in combination with low dose ritonavir (PF-07321332; ritonavir). Under the terms of the license agreement, qualified generic medicine manufacturers worldwide that are granted sub-licenses, will be able to supply this combination drug to 95 countries, covering up to approximately 53% of the world’s population.

Conclusion:

Covid Pandemic, which apparently, is refusing to vanish anytime soon, makes the issue of making affordable access to critical innovative drugs for all, more intense. Since long, researchers, academicians, practitioners, and the stakeholders involved in addressing this healthcare challenge for the majority of the population have suggested several innovative approaches.

These include, focus on three kinds of innovation simultaneously, and with similar zest, can make health care better and cheaper. One such area is changing pharma business models for critical innovative drugs. The good news is a few pharma players have already charted on this pathway in the past, successfully, by extending royalty-free, voluntary licenses to manufacturers in the developing countries and poorer nations. Some of them even tried to match their tiered pricing with equivalent generic drug prices. But the overall response was rather lukewarm in the old normal. Interestingly, the new normal signals a mindset change in this regard within a larger number of global innovators.

The current trend gives a hope to many that an increasing number of global innovators will sincerely explore – not just one, but all the three areas of innovation for affordable access to innovative drugs. This could possibly reduce, if not eliminate the future need for the grant of compulsory licenses for such drugs, as happened during the peak of Covid pandemic, especially in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray      

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

Covid 2.0 Rampages India As Top Echelon Policy Makers Ignore Science

Posted on by
Reply

‘India is in the endgame of COVID,’ announced the union health minister of India, just in the last month – March 08, 2021. Although, it was then clearly known to medical fraternity that today’s Covid vaccines won’t be magic bullets against rapidly mutating new Coronavirus. Interestingly, a scientific-data based MIT study, published last year – on July 01, 2020 predicted that India might record the highest ever in the world – 287,000 new Coronavirus cases per day, by February 2021. At that juncture also Covid vaccines were expected to be available in India before that predicted time frame. The MIT study warning received a wide coverage even in India - by almost all news dailies, on that very month of the last year. The national Covid management team did not seem to have taken it seriously, along with others. These include, besides the top echelon of governance – a vast majority of Indians – across the social, political, religious and economic strata.

The fallout of such callousness – both at the individual Covid-appropriate behavior level, as well as Covid governance level, have been more disastrous than what was forecasted even in the above MIT study. The ferocity and scale of the second Covid-19 wave in India did not just overwhelm the nation, but raised grave concern across the world too. On April 22, 2021, India recorded the world’s biggest ever single-day rise with 314,835 new cases of Covid-19, causing death to 2,104 people. The very next day, this number increased to 332,730 new cases with 2263 deaths.

But, the peak of the Covid second wave hasn’t come, just yet. According to a mathematical model developed by a team of scientists from the IIT Kanpur and reported by news media on April 22, 2021, the number of active covid-19 cases in India during the second wave is expected to peak in May. The daily infection count is expected to exceed 350,000 cases. In this article, I shall dwell on three specific areas – acknowledging that the current scenario is the outcome of national misjudgment, if not a humongous misgovernance to prepare India for Covid 2.0:

  • Current struggle of India’s fragile and long-ignored health care infrastructure.
  • Need to neutralize some general misgivings on Covid vaccines and associated dilemmas.
  • Who is equipped to save people, if no external remedial measures remain unavailable for some more time?

India’s fragile and long-ignored health infrastructure can’t take anymore:

Amid this calamity, India has run short of oxygen, hospital beds, important Covid medicines, including Remdesivir. Curiously, reports keep coming incessantly confirm and reconfirm: ‘Ever since the second wave of the pandemic started, the healthcare systems in India have been teetering on the brink, with many hospitals unable to handle the relentless inflow of patients whilst also running short of beds, oxygen cylinders and other essentials.’

Doctors and many health care workers are overwhelmed by the massive scale of the human tragedy and in tears, as they articulate: ‘Many lives could have been saved had there been enough beds, oxygen supplies, ventilators and other resources – if the healthcare system had been better prepared for the second wave.’

The Supreme Court intervened, noting the ‘grim situation’ in the country:

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of India, reportedly, ‘Suo motu’ (on its own) took note of the grim situation in the country and the havoc caused due to shortage of Oxygen cylinders in hospitals. Consequently, on April 22, 2021, the top court said, ‘it expected the Centre to come out with a “national plan” on the supply of oxygen and essential drugs for treatment of infected patients and method and manner of vaccination against the disease.’  The Delhi High Court also observed, “We all know that this country is being run by God,” coming down heavily on the Centre over the Covid-19 management.

Some Covid vaccine related misgivings and dilemmas:

Many people are raising questions of the efficacy of two currently available Covid vaccines in India – Covishield and Covaxin, especially against our probably ‘desi’ double mutant variety of Covid-19. The trepidation increased manifold when India’s former Prime Minister – Dr. Manmohan Singh got Covid infected after taking two doses of Covaxin. Or, reports, such as: ‘Sri Lanka reports six cases of blood clots in AstraZeneca vaccine recipients, 3 dead.’ Incidentally, these vaccines were made in India. Some may not possibly know that both the issues have been deliberated by the Indian scientists, who haven’t expressed any concern, as yet. This has to be shared with all by all concerned, soon. Let me explore some of these related issues, as follows:

Re-infection after taking Covid vaccines:

Regarding re-infection rate after taking two doses of Covid vaccines, the scientists have now released data establishing that only a very small fraction of those vaccinated with either Covaxin or Covishield, have tested positive. In any case, instances of a few “breakthrough” infections do not undermine the efficacy of the vaccines, they added.

The ICMR has also clarified, “These vaccines definitely protect against disease. However, the immune response begins to develop usually two weeks after every dose and there are variations within individuals, too. Even after the first dose, if exposure to the virus happens, one can test positive.”

Efficacy of Covishield and Covaxin against double mutant strains:

Notably, both – the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) have announced last week that Covishield and Covaxin protect patients even from the ‘double mutant’, B.1.617, variety of Covid-19. Scientists believe that the “double mutant” is responsible for the sudden spike in the number of cases in Maharashtra and other parts of the country. They had earlier feared that this “double mutant” or B.1.617, may escape the immune system and thus vaccines may not offer protection from this strain of the novel coronavirus.

Reported risk of blood clotting with Oxford-AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine:

No cases of blood clotting have come to light in India. However, a government panel of experts is,reportedly, investigating for any domestic cases of blood clotting, even mild ones, as a side effect of the two COVID-19 vaccines being administered in India. According to India’s leading virologist Gagandeep Kang, “blood clots reportedly caused as a result of Oxford-AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine amount to a very small risk.”

As reported on April 24, 2021, the United States has also decided to immediately resume the use of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine, ending a 10-day pause to investigate its link to extremely rare but potentially deadly blood clots. These details, I reckon, need also to be shared with all people, soon, in order to neutralize any doubt on administering Covid vaccines.

Covid vaccine availability and pricing:

Recent media reports highlight, at least six states of India – Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha and Telangana – are facing Covid vaccine shortage, as Covid 2.0 overwhelms India. Most of these states have already apprised the Centre of the situation, as the Supreme Court of India also seeks the details from the center about its current status.

As on April 22, 2021, India has administered over 135 million vaccine doses, where each individual will require two doses. Whereas, as published in Bloomberg on April 23, 2021, ‘1 billion Covid-19 vaccines have been administered around the world.’ The good news is, effective May 01, 2021, everyone above the age of 18 years will be eligible to get vaccinated. The Central Government will also lift its singular control on supply and delivery of Covid-19 vaccines in a bid to tackle the massive rise of cases that have crippled the country’s health infrastructure.

That said, the key question that follows – would Covid vaccine manufacturers be able to meet this increasing demand in India, when there already exists more demand than its supply? According to Niti Aayog Covid-19: Vaccine availability will improve by July 2021. The two major vaccine manufacturers in India are also indicating broadly similar time frame.

Meanwhile, amid a deadly second wave of Covid infections, a third Coronavirus vaccine - Russia’s Sputnik V, has been approved for emergency use in India. Incidentally, Sputnik V’s approval came not before India overtook Brazil to become the country with the second-highest number of cases globally. According to its local distributor – Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, India will start receiving Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine by end May.

Be that as it may, it is still unclear whether enough Covid vaccine doses will be available right from May 1, 2021, to start inoculating all Indians above 18 years of age, across the length and breadth of the country. Besides, SSI’s decision to fix the rate of Covishield vaccine for private hospitals and state governments, has attracted sharp criticism from the Opposition, who argued that there was no logic in charging the state governments a higher price, when the Centre is getting the same vaccine at Rs 150 per dose.

This question surfaces, especially when SII Chief himself acknowledged that they are making profit even with Rs.150/per dose price as the pandemic ravages the nation. A news item of April 24, 2021 also underscores ‘Serum Institute’s Rs.600/dose for Covishield in private hospitals is its highest rate in the world.’ Nonetheless, price sensitivity to Covid vaccines during the pandemic is not specific to India.

Shareholders of Pfizer, J&J, reportedly, are also pushing for detailed COVID-19 pricing strategies of the respective companies, at their annual meetings. Curiously, at the same, yet another report highlights: ‘With the competition struggling, Pfizer’s COVID vaccine sales could hit $24B this year.’ Amazing!

India utterly overwhelmed, angry outbursts of concern beyond its shores:

Witnessing the nature of rampage caused by Covid 2.0 in India, global press blames the Indian top policy makers for utter failure to anticipate and tackle the devastating second wave. For example, The Guardian of the UK flashed a headline on April 21, 2021 – ‘The system has collapsed’: India’s descent into Covid hell.’ It further elaborated: ‘Many falsely believed that the country had defeated Covid. Now hospitals are running out of oxygen and bodies are stacking up in morgues.’ The Times, UK was harsher. It reported, ‘Modi flounders in India’s gigantic second wave.’ It further added: ‘Record levels of infection have put huge strain on the health service and highlighted the perils of complacency in the nationalist government.’

The New York Times reported on April 23, 2021: ‘India’s Health System Cracks Under the Strain as Coronavirus Cases Surge.’ The report also cited examples of ‘recent political rallies held by Mr. Modi that have drawn thousands, as well as the government’s decision to allow an enormous Hindu festival to continue despite signs that it has become a super spreader event.’

Conclusion:

Keeping aside the responsibility, or rather lack of it, of the National Covid governance team, individual Indians – like you and me – can’t in any way shy away from our own responsibility of compliance to Covid appropriate behavior, religiously. We are equally responsible, at least, for our own lives and fate. Even today, many of those who are wearing a face mask, are wearing in the chin – keeping the nose exposed – forget about double masking! Moreover, how many of us were or are eligible for Covid vaccination till date, but did not or could not take?

Curiously, Covid 2.0 is no longer striking mostly the poor urban population, living in slums or hutments, or the migrant laborer. Nor it is attacking mainly the senior citizens or people with co-morbidities. More young people, including children are getting infected in Covid 2.0. In Covid 2.0 – over 90 per cent of Covid new cases concentrate in in high rise and other buildings in major cities, like Mumbai. While urban slums account for just 10 per cent. On April 24, 2021, Bloomberg also reported, ‘India’s Urban Affluent Hit By New Virus Wave After Dodging First.’

Terming Covid 2.0 as concerning and scaring‘, Tata Sons Chairman also said, ‘India needs to get as many different Covid-19 vaccine licenses as possible. And replicate multiple factories on a war footing to ramp up production in order to meet the requirements as the country reels under the devastating second wave of the pandemic.’ It’s incredible, how a small country in the Indian subcontinent – Bhutan with limited resources, got its vaccination plan right and carried out, reportedly, the world’s fastest immunization drive.

Coming back to the last year’s above MIT study forecast for 2021 Covid situation in India. It goes without saying that this one, among several others, was based on credible data. It also brought to the fore the scientific reasons of consequences for not following the norms of Covid appropriate behavior. Looking back and coming back to real life scenario of date, one thing becomes crystal clear. When science is ignored, both at the highest echelon of national governance where the buck stops – or at the individual, social, religious or political level – it is virtually inevitable that a disaster would strike. And in most cases, it will strike hard – very hard. Much beyond what a human can withstand to survive. We have choice for survival – even in today’s frightening scenario. Let’s individually and collectively behave, as the science demands. Life and livelihood are important – for all of us.

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.

 

 

Neutralize Covid-19 Impact on Drug Prices And Market Access For Faster Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

Covid-19 pandemic that has not spared any facet of human lives and livelihoods, has also reignited several ongoing debates related to the drug industry. The need to urgently resolve these issues grows manifold, as the real magnitude of this health crisis doesn’t seem to be clear even to the key Government decision makers.

This is vindicated by the research paper, written by government scientists and other experts, published on September 10, 2020 in the Indian Journal of Medical Research. It reveals, India had nearly 6.5 million cases as early as May 2020. Whereas, according to the health ministry, the total number cases stood at around 180,000 in late May. This happened because, ‘large numbers of cases could have gone under the radar earlier this year, because testing was limited to symptomatic patients or states had varying testing rates,’ the paper highlighted.

From the pharma industry perspective, a pandemic of such magnitude is also causing indefinite delay in pre-planned market access of several important drugs and vaccines. Some are due to technical reasons. However, many others are related to their value-based cost-effectiveness in the new normal, when the pandemic has put enormous strain on health expenditure, across the world.

In this situation, past mechanisms of new drug pricing, are required to undergo significant changes. The new yardsticks, I reckon, will be based on two critical factors. The first – the disease treatment priorities, as will be decided jointly by both doctors and patients. And the second – the paying capacity of both payers and individual patients, based on the value that each treatment will offer – again, as perceived by patients.

As it appears, the impact of Covid-19 on the pharma industry will continue till the medium term, if not beyond. Consequently, the concept of new drug pricing – based on well-documented, differential value offerings of treatments, would need to be revisited and recalibrated. This has to be realigned with evolving patient needs. Considering the emerging scenario, this article will focus on the exigency to neutralize Covid-19 impact on new drug prices and pre-planned ‘market access’ – for faster business recovery.

Covid-19 has increased the drug price sensitivity:

The challenge of increasing drug price sensitivity – triggered by the new Coronavirus pandemic, has now assumed a global dimension. A June 18, 2020 study, flags: ‘Nine in 10 Concerned About Rising Drug Costs Due to COVID-19.’ Although, this particular study (Gallup Poll) was conducted in the United States, general public apprehension is no different in other parts of the world, including India, for various reasons.

Even in America, which is considered Eldorado for pharma business, primarily for unregulated drug pricing, is also changing with the impact of Covid-19. The reason being, reported instances of drug prices are rapidly rising, amid the pandemic. As the above Gallup Poll highlights, today ‘a large majority of Americans support direct negotiations by the federal government with the drug manufacturer on the price of a treatment for the disease itself.” Interestingly, ‘significant support exists across all major demographic groups.’

Other specialists on pharmaceutical pricing and market access, also envisage that pharmaceutical companies will be faced with increased price sensitivity, and are quite concerned with the long-term impact of the pandemic on health care systems.

Covid-19 pandemic would seriously impact pharma spending:

As quoted above, several other specialists for pharmaceutical pricing and market access have also pointed out some critical Covid-19 impact areas, including:

  • Tremendous increase in pandemic related public expenditure, could prompt further austerity measures in already strained health care budgets, besides job losses or pay cuts of scores of people for different reasons.
  • The pandemic is likely to result in a redistribution of health care funding towards infectious diseases (e.g. prioritization of antivirals and vaccines) and chronic diseases associated with worsening COVID-19 outcomes.
  • This may result in more drug pricing pressure in other disease areas, besides push for increasing use of similar cheaper generics and biosimilars, unless absolutely necessary.
  • Stricter monitoring of usage of medicines, especially in private hospitals, to ensure their use within the regulatory label and/or within the reimbursed population.
  • Possibility of mandatory price cuts either across the board or for drugs which have been on the market for a specific duration.

The report also envisages, pharmaceutical companies will be faced with increased price sensitivity and decrease in willingness to pay by authorities. Consequently, the key question in this area becomes: What impact will COVID-19 have on the future of pricing and market access? And how to address this issue, effectively? 

Need for an appropriate drug pricing models in the new normal:

Overall scenario for drug pricing model has not changed much, till Convid-19 pandemic overwhelmed the world. The age-old concept of drug pricing, being treated as almost given, is changing fast. As I wrote earlier, it started in the developed world, with newer concepts, such as, Health Technology Assessment (HTA), besides a few others. However, to illustrate the point, I shall focus only on the HTA model. It includes a multi-faceted assessment of the clinical, economic, ethical, legal, and societal perspectives that may be impacted by a new technology, procedure, drug, or process.

Application of HTA in Medicine Pricing:

The ‘Working Paper 6’ of June 2013, on ‘The Role of Health Technology Assessment in Medicine Pricing and Reimbursement,’ published jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Health Action International (HAI), is worth referring to.

The paper aims to identify and describe the role of HTA in price-setting and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals, with a focus on its use in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, as Covid-19 is now fueling the drug price sensitivity across the globe, and not just in the LMIC, this reference will help drive home the point, as one faces today.

While combating health care resource crunch in the face of the Coronavirus quagmire, many countries are contemplating a variety of approaches to maintain affordable access to healthcare for patients. The concept of HTA is one such common approach. It includes pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical devices, medical and surgical procedures, besides the systems within which health is protected and maintained.

Relevance of a recalibrated HTA in the new normal:

For a new drug, as the Institute For Clinical And Economic Review (ICER) puts it, a final HTA report would attempt to answer the following questions, besides a few others:

  • Is it safe and effective?
  • Which patients benefit the most?
  • Is there a meaningful improvement in health status?
  • Can all people afford to pay who might need it?
  • Will it offer a good value in the long run?
  • What other considerations make it important?

These points need to be looked at keeping in view that Covid-19 pandemic has seriously impacted the health care spending. Thus, the process needs to be recalibrated in the new normal. In any case, HTA has the potential to play a critical role in new drug pricing, by assessing the intrinsic value of medicines that can significantly expand patient-access to care. In tandem, it could maximize the value for money in health expenditure with most efficient allocation of scarce health resources, that most countries are facing today. Nevertheless, there could well be a few company or country specific barriers to capture the value of a drug or treatment, as well. A robust plan for their mitigation needs to be well-thought through, to ensure effective implementation and achieve desirable outcomes.

HTA in India:

At least, on paper HTA exists even in India. The Government of India had created an institutional arrangement called “Health Technology Assessment in India (HTAIn)”, under the Department of Health Research (DHR). It was entrusted with collation and the generation of evidences on cost effectiveness and safety of health care interventions, including medicines and devices.

The key goals are, to reduce the cost of patient care, overall cost of medical treatment, reduction in out of pocket expenditure of patients, besides streamlining the medical reimbursement procedures. Nevertheless, it remains a million dollar question whether India would leverage this system to ensure fair pricing of new drugs in India.

Some pre-requisites to implement HTA – afresh:

In those countries, where HTA for drug pricing and reimbursement doesn’t already exist, there could be several pre-requisites. These may include, as the above paper indicates, establishing a medicines regulatory system, developing and enforcing legislation, employing the appropriate technical expertise, and the allocation of sector-wide financial resources in accordance with the decisions of the organization using the HTA.

That said, the bottom-line is, the quest to arrive at fair pricing for a new drug, could also help ‘market access’, especially in a difficult time, like today’s health care crisis. In that endeavor, let me briefly dwell on the concept of ‘fair pricing a drug’.    

The concept of ‘fair pricing a drug’:

This issue has been well deliberated by many experts around the world. However, let me quote a recent article – ‘Defining the concept of fair pricing for medicines,’ published by The BMJ on January 13, 2020.

The paper articulates, ‘a fair price for a medicine is affordable to the buyer while covering the seller’s costs and providing a reasonable profit margin. Within a fair pricing zone, a specific price may be higher or lower, possibly reflecting differential value.

Interestingly, the authors also noted: ‘Applying the framework to decision making would require access to data on R&D, manufacturing, and distribution costs, which is generally not publicly disclosed. This lack of transparency about costs undermines efforts to assess the fairness of medicines prices.’

The article underscored, lack of transparency in these areas, ‘also exacerbates information asymmetry to the sellers’ advantage.’ It suggested, disclosure can be enforced through legislation, regulation, and judicial action. Or as a condition of receiving public research funds, tax benefits, regulatory approval. Or listing in a formulary for reimbursement. ‘In the absence of disclosure, decision makers may rely on reasonable estimates based on publicly available information,’ the paper concluded.

Conclusion:

As recorded in the morning of September 13, 2020, total Coronavirus cases in India have reached a staggering figure of 4,754,356 with 78,614 deaths, overtaking Brazil. This trend continues going North, as days pass by.

All-pervasive Covid-19 pandemic is fueling severe resource constraints, especially for health care. Amid this complexity, to combat this deadly virus – alongside other non-Covid related illnesses – value added drugs and treatments could help overcome many hurdles in this area. They could help improve cost-effectiveness of treatments to price-sensitive patients, besides other stakeholders.

Recalibrated HTA mechanism, which I have used in this article as an example to effectively overcome prevailing drug price sensitivity, is one among a few others. Importantly, HTA mechanism exists even in India. It can be appropriately used for new drugs and vaccines pricing, if the Government wishes to.

On the other hand, it’s up to individual companies to choose any other price-value model’ that they will deem appropriate, to arrive at a ‘fair value for new drugs’. However, the goal remains common for all - Neutralizing Covid-19 impact on drug prices and market access, to ensure faster recovery of the business.

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.

Covid-19 Drugs: Accessibility, Affordability And Availability

Posted on by
Reply

Covid-19 continues refusing to unravel the key to neutralize its destructive power – for bringing human life and the socioeconomic fabric of a country back to the old normal again. Just as India, all other countries are, apparently, awaiting a ‘magic bullet’ to come, breaking the shackles of this labyrinth, so to speak.

General expectation is, all concerned will understand that coming out of the new Coronavirus maze, sooner, at any cost – is the only way to bring back life, livelihoods, social fabric and the national economy on to the rail, again. Consequently, every entity in the world would require making moderate sacrifices in this unprecedented endeavor.

Right at this time, accessibility, affordability and availability of emergency use Covid-19 drugs, for various reasons, are going beyond the reach of a large number of the population who need those the most. This is happening not just beyond the shores of India, but in the country, as well, perhaps much more than expected. Interestingly, the issue pertains more to Covid-10 repurposed older drugs, and not so much for vaccines – just yet, as I shall deliberate below.

In this article, I shall focus on this issue, hoping for a reversal of the current trend through active involvement of the both the drug company leadership, and also the national decision makers to safeguard public health interest. Interestingly, the drug pricing issue, mostly with repurposed older drugs, is both global and local. Thus, let me first dwell on the subject of drug price increases during this global public health emergency.

Drug price increases during a global public health emergency: 

According to the July 08, 2020 report of IHS Markit, prices of critical drugs are increasing at a time when they are needed the most, as the governments and individual patients potentially struggle to pay for them.

The findings brought to the fore, prices for the 10 most critical drugs to treat COVID-19 have risen a highly unusual 4 percent globally, during the crisis. The cost for over half of these essential COVID-19 medicines rose across 80 countries between February and June 2020. Let me illustrate this point with one example each of Covid-19 emergency treatment options, starting with the global outcry for the same.

Global skepticism on remdesivir pricing:

As the world anxiously awaits a Covid-19 vaccine to hit the market, an experimental repurposed older drug – remdesivir of Gilead Sciences Inc. was introduced as an emergency treatment option for this infection. Pending detail clinical trial results, currently the drug has received only emergency regulatory approvals with an expectation that it may shorten the recovery period in some severely ill Covid-19 patients.

Gilead Sciences, on June 29, 2020, announced its price of $2,340 for a typical treatment course for people covered by government health programs in the United States and other developed countries.However, it will cost $3,120 for patients with private insurance. This price was swiftly and widely criticized, because the drug has received at least $70 million in public funding toward its development - the report highlighted.

Elaborating what would be affordable pricing for this drug in the developed world, another reportquoted the watchdog group – Public Citizen. This group maintains $1 per day is fair. It points to a cost-recovery model developed by the University of Liverpool, which calculated that the cost of manufacturing remdesivir at scale would be 93 cents per dose, leaving the remainder as, in its view, “a reasonable profit to Gilead,” as the report underscored.

Interestingly, analysts expect Gilead to make $525 million on remdesivir sales this year and $2.1 billion next year. This isn’t the first time Gilead is facing public criticism on life saving drug pricing. Just to recap, in 2013, the company also received ‘brickbats’ for its $84,000 price tag for groundbreaking hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi—followed up by its combo pill Harvoni, priced at $94,500. But those were first in class new and innovative drugs. Nevertheless, the remdesivir pricing issue is viewed differently, because it is not just a repurposed older drug, but indicated to combat a global public health crisis.

Let me now give an Indian example on a similar issue, but with a different anti-Covid-19 drug.

Criticism in India with Covid- 19 drug pricing: 

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had on June19, 2020 approved anti-viral drug favipiravir, manufactured in India by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. This approval was for “restricted emergency use” of the drug in mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in the country, in view of the urgent medical need during the pandemic. Favipiravir is made under the brand name Avigan by Japan’s Fujifilm Holdings Corp and was approved for use as an anti-flu drug there in 2014.

According to media reports, Glenmark launched the drug on June 20, 2020 with the brand name FabiFlu at a price of Rs 103 per tablet. On this pricing issue, a member of the Indian Parliament, reportedly, made a representation to the DCGI stating, as a patient has to take 122 tablets of the drug in 14 days, the total cost of the treatment will come to around Rs 12,500. The M.P argued, “price quoted for this drug is definitely not affordable to the common people,” and ‘is definitely not in the interest of the poor, lower middle class and middle-class people of India.’ Additionally, the submission mentioned that ‘Glenmark has also claimed that this drug is effective in co-morbid conditions like hypertension, diabetes, whereas in reality, as per protocol summary, this trial was not designed to assess the FabiFlu in comorbid condition,’ as the letter read.

However, on July 13, 2020, Glenmark reportedly said that it had reduced Favipiravir price from Rs103 to Rs75 per tablet. The Company said, “The price reduction has been made possible through benefits gained from higher yields and better scale, as both the API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) and formulations are made at Glenmark’s facilities in India, the benefits of which are being passed on to patients in the country.”

Thereafter, as reported on July 19, 2020, after receiving a complaint from a member of Parliament, the DCGI sought a clarification from Glenmark over its alleged “false claims” about the use of FabiFlu on Covid-19 patients with comorbidities, including the “pricing” of the drug.

In response Glenmark stated, “Compared to other therapies approved for emergency use in Covid-19, FabiFlu is much more economical and an effective treatment option.” The comparing argued, the estimated total cost for the full course of Favipiravir is Rs 9,150. Whereas, the same for Remdesivir, Tocilizumab and Itolizumab will come to Rs 24,000-30,000, Rs 44,000 and Rs 32,000, respectively.

Importantly, seriously ill Covid-19 patients will often be given many of these drugs, such as, tocilizumab, remdesivir and favipiravir, either one after the other, or simultaneously, making the overall price of treatment hefty for many. From this perspective, the bottom line is, Covid-19 drug treatment in India – where the out of pocket drug expenses is one of the highest in the world, won’t be affordable to many. Besides, there are other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug access and availability to Indian patients. The question that surfaces in this situation, are Covid-19 drug prices are high where there is no or less competition. If, so this is an avoidable situation.

Could this be due to less or no competition?

Continuing with the example of Favipiravir against the above backdrop, Cipla also, reportedly, received the DCGI approval for the launch of experimental Covid-19 drug Favipiravir in India on July 24, 2020. The brand will be marketed under the brand name Ciplenza in the first week of August and is priced much less than Glenmark’s Favipiravir – at Rs 68 per tablet. Could this be due to market competition?

Possibly so, because another report of July 25, 2020 indicated, nearly 10 other Favipiravir formulations will be launched shortly, despite inconclusive scientific clinical evidence as on date. Favipiravir price is expected to fall further due to competition. In that case, what could be the takeaway message, when this price trend is viewed against the response of Glenmark to the DCGI letter, justifying FabiFlu pricing?

Other issues of Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients:

Other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients include, prices of Covid-19 drugs shooting up in short supply. There have been reports of difficulty in accessing remdesivir in India, too, although, Gilead Sciences has licensed this drug out to a few Indian generic pharmaceutical companies such as Hetero Healthcare, which has announced that it would manufacture and sell it at Rs 5,400 per vial. According to the latest protocol of the health ministry, the dosage of remdesivir should be 200 mg IV on day 1 followed by 100 mg IV daily for 4 days (5 days in total). From this one can easily work out the treatment cost with remdesivir for each patient.

Moreover, a BBC investigation has found that two life-saving drugs used to treat Covid-19 patients in India – remdesivir and tocilizumab – are in short supply and being sold for excessive rates on a thriving black market. Yet another recent investigation has unraveled a growing black-market for plasma therapy, ‘born out of the desperation of families willing to do anything to save their loved ones infected with Covid-19.’

I am citing these examples to give a sense of the plight of common Covid-19 patients from the drug availability, affordability and accessibility perspective – to save lives. However, the good news is, in this otherwise gloomy scenario, as perceived by many, a more empathetic scenario has been reported from many Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers.

More empathetic scenario with Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers: 

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), over 160 groups are working on COVID-19 vaccines, and 24 candidates have already reached human testing, Some are, reportedly gearing up for phase 3. It is widely expected, vaccines might be ready later this year or early next year. Vaccine developers are racing ahead at record speed, supported by Governments and facilitated by the drug regulators, to translate billion dreams coming true amid a public health catastrophe.

For the world population to acquire immunity against the Covid-19 onslaught, the key question remains: ‘At what price’, when vaccines are available? According to reports, the encouraging news is, some major vaccine makers, such as:

  • AstraZeneca (with Oxford University) plans to price at “no profit” during the pandemic “to support broad and equitable access around the world.” The company has entered several agreements with governments and other groups to provide about 2 billion doses around the world, at no profit.
  • Similarly, J&J has also “committed to bringing a safe and effective vaccine to the public on a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.”
  • Pfizer CEO has also said the company “will make a very, very marginal profit at this stage.” He pointed out that the company hasn’t taken any governmental funding, unlike other players. The company and its partner BioNTech have entered a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million doses. Moreover, Pfizer and BioNTech will get $1.95 billion from the US government to produce and deliver 100 million doses of their Covid-19 vaccine candidate.
  • Moderna CEO said, there’s “no world, I think, where we would contemplate to price this higher than other respiratory virus vaccines.”
  • Sanofi, which has separate COVID-19 vaccine partnerships with GlaxoSmithKline and Translate Bio, has “been committed to working with governments, partners and payers to ensure that when new vaccines are approved, we will make them available and affordable,”
  • Merck CEO also said the company has committed to “broad, equitable, affordable access.”
  • Nearer home, Serum Institute of India, has pledged to make 1 billion doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca jointly formed COVID-19 vaccine at under Rs1000 per shot. The production could start as early as first quarter next year. Company CEO said this is not the time to make money from a vaccine against the novel Coronavirus, which has caused a global pandemic.

These pledges do give a comfort to many. Because, unlike Covid-19 repurposed older drug manufacturers, Covid-19 vaccine makers seem to be more empathetic to make these accessible and available to the world population at an affordable price.

Conclusion:

Well past a million mark, as on July 26, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 1,339,176 with 31,425 deaths. With the number of daily cases being more than Brazil, India is poised to bridge its gap with the South American country. The steep unenviable climb continues.

The July 21, 2020 article – ‘Drug Pricing Back in the Spotlight,’ published in the PharmaExec.com, quoted the ICER Executive Vice-President saying,’ the drug pricing conversation is different in a pandemic.’ The system needs to ensure public access to drugs and vaccines in this global health crisis. If it does not happen, I reckon, appropriate authorities must step in with specific remedial measures.

Otherwise, the kudos showered on the drug industry for promptly offering a number of repurposed older drugs for emergency use against Covid-19 may not last long, if these treatments are not affordable and accessible to a vast majority. From this perspective, the questions being raised on accessibility, affordability and availability of many Covid-19 drugs, need to be addressed and resolved – soon.

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.

Setting A Cost Of Time That Patients May Gain From A New Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some, an intense ongoing debate about setting a cost of time, often by a few months, that patients could possibly gain from a new therapy for complex diseases. The answer still remains elusive.  Meanwhile, newer therapies for treating cancer, such as, Kymriah, priced at US$ 475,000, alongside several rare diseases, hit the market with jaw-dropping prices. The latest being - Zolgensma of Novartis, carrying a price tag of US$ 2.12 million – the most expensive treatment ever. This trend assumes greater significance as Bio – claimed as the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, and related organizations, across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, also makes some interesting points in this area.

This article will dwell on the relevance of this important issue, both in today’s and also in the future perspective. It will try to explore, why pharma and biotech companies are not keen to use a ‘transparent multi-factorial life-value calculator’, especially for prolonging life or curing an incurable disease, with a high-priced novel therapy.

Emotional ads to justify the trend, against tough practical questions: 

A part of a sleek looking advertisement from Bio, depicting the power of new therapies to prolong life, carries a headline – ‘Time. The Currency of Life,” followed by three emotive lines and two equally emotive questions: “Another decade with a spouse. A few more years with your best friend. A rich, fuller life rather than one cut short. How do we place value on these?” It then asks: “What is more precious? What is more priceless?”

Turning this emotive question on its head to a rational one, an article published in the Stat News on February 25, 2016 questioned: “How much is an extra month of life worth?” It asked the drug makers to calculate the same. The same article also quoted a Yale University economist and practicing radiologist asking: “It’s all well and good to just say life is priceless, but the reality is we are paying for it.”

Emotive ads try to justify funding towards innovation for such drugs:

The same advertisement, as above, while trying to indirectly justify such exorbitant drug costs, used yet another emotive note in its playbook. It emphasized: “By continuing to fund the innovation pipeline that has served us so well, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with modern-day health care.”

Such claims are being scientifically challenged – head on, by many important studies. To illustrate this point, I shall quote the following two, both were published in the JAMA Network. The first one in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and the next one in JAMA Oncology.

The first article is the ‘John Conley Lecture’, carrying a title, ‘Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity,’ appeared on December 2014. On innovative drugs of such genre, the paper concluded: “The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress, by:

  • Encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and
  • Promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity.

The second article is an ‘original investigation, titled ‘Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines.’ It also underscored: ‘Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.’

Here again, the emotional appeal is being made by creating a ‘perfect World’ scenario. Whereas, scientific analysis of the innovative and high-priced drugs, reveals the reality for other stakeholders to take note of. Different pharma trade associations, although being a part of the same orchestrated effort, try differently to take the eyes off the humongous prices of new life-saving drugs. But many continue to believe that new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control.

90 percent Biopharma companies do not earn a profit – A bizarre claim?

As is well-known, besides justifying high drug prices by highlighting ‘high R&D cost,’ drug manufacturers often say, as the Bio ad campaign makes an eyebrow raising claim – “Of the approximately 1,200 Biopharma companies in the United States, more than 90 percent do not earn a profit.”

Citing the example of the US market where drug prices are very high, it justifies, the general focus on list prices of the drugs is misplaced. This is because, the ‘manufacturers provide billions of dollars in rebates and discounts on their innovative therapies annually, to federal, state and private payors, in addition to offering direct assistance through patient assistance programs.’ It further added, these discounts vary but can result into a significant total of as much as 50 percent or greater depending on the program.

Experts have challenged even this claim that the list prices do matter, even in the US, for many, including uninsured population and those with co-payment arrangement, which are not based on the discounted prices. Leaving aside America, what happens in those countries, such as India, where out-of-pocket expenses on health care are considered the highest in the world?

With new cancer drug prices going beyond control, the price of postponing death is growing:

That the new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control, isn’t a new realization. A research paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on May 06, 2013, also noted emphatically: ‘Allowing the producer-dominated market to set drug prices has spiraled the cost of cancer drugs out of control.’  So did another 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective.

According to various studies, such as the one published in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, as quoted above, also found after studying over 70 of such new drugs that the median improvement in survival was around 2.1months. Some other reports indicated this number to be around 3.5 months on an average.

Interestingly, the 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective found that ‘the price of postponing death is growing. In 2013, one extra year of life for cancer patients costs US$ 207,000, on average, nearly quadruple what it did in 1995.

Is it quality of life over the quantity of life, or vice versa?

The above findings may lead one to the critical question – what type of treatment choice would create the most desirable net impact on individual cancer patients? This evaluation should include all the three parameters – the extent of prolongation of the ‘Length of Life (LoL)’, the ‘Quality of Life (QoL)’ the patients experience during this period – and the additional drug cost that needs to be incurred.

It should ideally be up to patients whether they will choose quality over quantity of life or vice versa. To facilitate this process, an informed briefing by the doctor on the most likely scenario, vis-à-vis other available treatment alternatives, is expected to help individual cancer patient exercise the best affordable individual option.

This point was scientifically addressed in a research article - ‘Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review,’ published in the Journal of Psycho-Oncology on May 15, 2019. The study noted, ‘Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and also the possibility of trading the Quality of Life (QoL) for Length of Life (LoL).’ Little information is available on patients’ preferences in this regard, including ‘the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life.’

Another related question that also remains equally elusive, is the relationship between the cost of a medication and the amount of quality-time that it offers to patients. Quantifiable assessment of such nature could bring more transparency in drug pricing, especially for those that help treat life-threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

The cost of drugs for rare diseases is threatening the health care system – articulated an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 07, 2017. The paper stated, in December 2016, US-FDA announced the market approval of nusinersen (sold as “Spinraza”), an effective Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treatment licensed to Biogen by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. SMA is considered the most common genetic cause of infant mortality.

As the author penned, “Patients and providers greeted the approval with near ecstasy, but the celebration was bittersweet. Five days after the FDA approved, the drug, Biogen announced each dose would cost US$ 125,000. Given that patients need six doses in the first year and three per year after that, it means the drug costs US$ 750,000 per patient in the first year and US$ 375,000 annually thereafter.”

A desperate father’s reaction for the price – and the economics behind it:

The HBR article captured the reaction of the father of an infant on this price, who is desperate to save the baby – in the following words – “Then there’s Will’s heartbreaking reaction, which I’m sure echoes the sentiments of many touched by SMA. – “The Biogen announcement of the cost of nusinersen floored me in every way possible,” he says. “Words cannot describe the sickening feeling I get when I think about it.” If this could be a father’s reaction in America, one can well imagine what happens in a similar situation to people in the developing world.

At that time, Zolgensma of Novartis, wearing a price tag of US$ 2.12 million for treatment of the same disease, was also shaping up for market launch. On this drug, the author of this HBR article who also happened to be a professor, vice chair of research, and chief of the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote: “A very promising gene therapy for SMA is on the horizon, which would require only one dose and potentially render nusinersen obsolete. Did such mercenary economics influence Biogen’s pricing decision? We may never know; drug companies are not required to justify their prices.” On the contrary, as many believe, the concerned global CEOs, reportedly, get a hefty financial reward, for the same.

Conclusion:

It is not difficult to understand either, that some drugs, especially for rare diseases, will be used for treating a smaller number of patients. Hence, the optimal economies of scale in manufacturing can’t be attained. At the same time, the cost of R&D of the therapy needs to be recouped along with a reasonable profit, for investment towards future drugs. This is in addition to market exclusivity the drug will enjoy through patent thicket.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of several methods of a human life value calculation, such as in the insurance industry the use of a transparent and drug industry specific, multi-factorial live-value calculator is still not in vogue. As the drug industry often highlights, the ‘value of human life is priceless’ – regardless of the costs of drugs. In this situation, many industry experts, academics and patient groups advocate that the ongoing uncontrolled pricing mechanism for such medicines should be brought under a leash. This could come in the form of a tough price negotiation’ before the drug marketing approval, as was promised by the Government, or putting in place a stringent price regulatory system.

Be that as it may, the bottom line is to understand and find an answer to: ‘Why Does Medicine Cost So Much?’ This issue was analyzed by the Time Magazine in its April 09, 2019 edition. Quoting Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, it emphasized: It all starts with the manufacturers. There are essentially no regulations governing how new drugs are priced – drug companies select a price what they “believe the market will bear.” Blockbuster first-in-class treatments, therefore, command a stratospheric price, like what happened with Gilead’s hepatitis medication – Sovaldi, way back in 2013. It was priced at US$ 1,000 a pill, or US $84,000 for the full course of treatment. From this perspective, although, setting a cost of time that patients may gain from a new therapy has a moral and ethical relevance – but actually, it doesn’t seem to be business-friendly in the drug industry.

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.

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

A set of perplexing questions on the drug industry has been haunting many, since long. One such area is intimately associated with the core purpose of this business, as enunciated by each company, often publicly. Just to give a feel of it, let me quote what one of the largest global pharma players – Pfizer articulated in this regard, on April 5, 2019: “Health for All is at the core of our company’s purpose. We advance breakthroughs that change patients’ lives by ensuring they have access to quality health care services and Pfizer’s medicines and vaccines.”

Publicly expressed core purpose of any pharma business being generally similar, it may be construed as the same of the industry, at large. Hence, some baffling questions – not ethical, but purely commercial in nature, float at the top of mind, such as:

  • How the core purpose of business – “Health for All”, gets served when companies bring to the market mostly exorbitantly high-priced drugs, having access only to a minuscule patient population?
  • How are these companies growing at a faster pace and doing better commercially, by focusing more on orphan drugs approved for the treatment of rare diseases, affecting a very small patient population.

At this point, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on ‘orphan drug’ and ‘rare disease’. According to MedicineNet, orphan drugs are those which are developed to specifically treat rare medical condition. This rare medical condition is also referred to as an orphan disease. With that preamble, I shall now focus on this knotty area in search of evidence-based answers to – Is it possible to reap a rich harvest in business with orphan drugs for rare disease? And, if so, how?

Is the focus on high priced orphan a strategic business move?

Regardless of an affirmative or negative answer to the above questions, many people are head scratching with anguish while observing this trend in the drug industry. Mainly because, it is possibly the most important industry for most patients, not only while suffering from an ailment, but also before and after it happens, for various reasons.

The anguish increases manifold, when top manufacturers of popular mass-market drugs, such as, the cholesterol blockbuster Crestor, Abilify for psychiatric conditions, cancer drug Herceptin, and rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, the best-selling medicine in the world, at a later stage seek and receive orphan drug status for these products reaping a rich harvest. The underlying intent being leveraging ‘additional advantages’ for exorbitant pricing and lesser competition. Hence, it is a strategic business move. I shall discuss this point in greater details, as was raised in a Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation, in this article.

The same feeling gets resonated in several articles and papers, such as the one titled ‘Big Pharma’s Go-To Defense of Soaring Drug Prices Doesn’t Add Up,’ published in The Atlantic on March 23, 2019. It questioned, ‘How is it that pharmaceutical companies can charge patients $100,000, $200,000, or even $500,000 a year for drugs – many of which are not even curative?’ Nonetheless, the strategy is working well, as we shall find below.

More drugs for rare diseases entering the market at a higher price:

Another article, titled ‘Drug Prices for Rare Diseases Skyrocket While Big Pharma Makes Record Profits,’ published by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) on September 10, 2019 wrote, drugs for rare diseases are now entering the market at higher prices than ever before, ranging from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per patient. It further wrote, according to a new report by AHIP, ‘out-of-control drug prices mean too many patients are forced to choose between paying for their prescriptions or paying their mortgage. The prices for drugs to treat rare medical conditions are 25 times more expensive than traditional drugs. That is 26-fold increase in two decades.

The rationale behind so high pricing:

To explore the rationale behind the exorbitant pricing of such drugs, let’s examine what the expert organizations, such as the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSSD) said in this regard. Quoting a senior research fellow of CSDD, the article - ‘The High Cost of Rare Disease Drugs,’ published by the Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) on March 04, 2014 reported, although biopharma players generally set higher prices for orphan drugs, there is no causal link between cost of development and pricing. Instead, rare-disease drug prices reflect typical supply and demand situation: ‘Few treatment alternatives allow companies to charge what they can, knowing that payers will often ultimately foot the bill.’

It further explained: “The rarity of the disease means that few people are affected. Generally, the fewer disease sufferers there are, the higher the price of the drug. Companies that invest the same amount of money or more in orphan drugs as they would non-orphan drugs, want to recoup their investment.”

The situation in India for such drugs:

The January 05, 2019 issue of The Pharma Letter captures it all in its headline – ‘India lifts price caps on innovative and orphan drugs; major fillip for Big Pharma.’ It said, with the new legislation announced on January 4, 2019, the Indian government has decided to remove price restrictions on new and innovative drugs developed by foreign pharmaceutical companies for the first five years. In a rider, the government notification also states, the provisions of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 will not apply to drugs for treating orphan diseases (rare diseases).

How will it impact Indian patients?

Consequent to the above government decision, as the report indicated: ‘Orphan drugs to treat rare disease, like Myozyme (alglucosidase alfa) and Fabrazyme (agalsidase beta), both from Genzyme, which are used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, are among a host of medicines that are to be kept out of price control.’

Quoting officials, the paper pointed out, the most challenging part in the fight against rare diseases is access to affordable treatment. As on date, the prices of these drugs tend to vary, e.g., the cost of treatment with enzyme replacement therapies may reach more than $150,000 per treatment per year. Whereas, in some other areas it may even be as much as $400,000 annually. Moreover, most of these drugs are rarely available in India. As a result, Indian patients suffering from rare diseases have to import these drugs directly. This makes affordability of medicines with an orphan drug regulatory status, a major issue for different stakeholders.

Why patient groups are not generally too vocal about this issue?

An interesting paper of 2008-09 brought to the fore the importance of patient organizations to further patient interest in various areas of health care. With the example of rare diseases and orphan drugs, it aptly expressed: ‘by changing the scale of their organizational efforts, patients’ organizations have managed to integrate themselves into the relays of power through which matters of health are thought about and acted upon. Through their formation into coalitions, patients’ organizations have been able to assume a number of important functions in relation to the government of health.’ The paper further added that the orphan drug problem can be thought of as having changed the scale and organizational form of rare disease patients’ groups.

Regrettably, a recent report of October 09, 2019, raised a big question in this area with a startling headline - ‘Big Pharma’s shelling out big-time to patient organizations. Is there any quid pro quo?’ It said, the Senate Finance Committee of the United States, while looking into the drug pricing decisions, ‘is digging into pharma funding for patient advocacy groups, which have been known to speak in tune that are music to the industry’s ears.’ It added, some Big Pharma constituents together contributed more than $ 680 million to hundreds of patient groups and other nonprofits last year.

It’s worth noting, earlier this year, several patient advocacy groups rallied in objection to a Trump-administration plan that would introduce step therapy requiring patients to try cheaper drugs before moving to more costly ones. ‘A Kaiser Health News analysis found that about half of the groups that objected had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’ Be that it may, rallying behind high drug prices by patient groups would help the industry only at the cost of patients’ interest. This is beyond an iota of doubt.

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

There are several motivating factors to market drugs, which also treat rare disease, attaching startling price tags. The top drivers are generally considered, as follows:

  • The company gets seven years of market exclusive rights with the drug marketing approval for a rare or orphan disease. Interestingly, many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new, either. Even if, the product patent runs out, USFDA won’t approve another version to treat that rare disease for seven years. This exclusivity is compensation for developing a drug, designed for a small number of patients whose total sales weren’t expected to be that profitable, otherwise.
  • Market exclusivity rights granted by the ‘Orphan Drug Act’ in the United States, can be a vital part of the protective shield that companies create.
  • Leveraging associated free pricing incentive, the concerned company can attach any price tag of its choice to the orphan drug, sans any competition.
  • Interestingly, more than 80 orphan drugs won USFDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drug manufacturer is qualified for a fresh batch of incentives. 

The system ‘is being manipulated by many drug makers’:

That this system is being manipulated by many drug makers was also established by the Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation dated January 17, 2017 titled, ‘Drugmakers Manipulate Orphan Drug Rules To Create Prized Monopolies.’ The analysis brought out that ‘the system intended to help desperate patients, is being manipulated by most drug makers. It reiterated, the key driver is to maximize profits, besides protecting niche markets for even those medicines, which are already being taken by millions. Thus, many orphan drugs, originally developed to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, come with astronomical price tags.’

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

The KHN’s investigation also uncovered that many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new. Over 70 were drugs first approved by the USFDA for mass market use. These medicines, some with familiar brand names, were later approved as orphans. ‘In each case, their manufacturers received millions of dollars in government incentives plus seven years of exclusive rights to treat that rare disease, or a monopoly’, the investigation revealed.

The same KHN study also cited the example of AbbVie’s Humira – the best-selling drug in the world. ‘Humira was approved by the USFDA in late 2002 to treat millions of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. Three years later, AbbVie asked the FDA to designate it as an orphan to treat juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which they told the FDA affects between 30,000 and 50,000 Americans. That pediatric use was approved in 2008, and Humira subsequently was approved for four more rare diseases, including Crohn’s and uveitis, an inflammatory disease affecting the eyes. The ophthalmologic approval would extend the market exclusivity for Humira for that disease until 2023, the report highlighted.

The report also indicated, much touted Gleevec of Novartis, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, has nine orphan approvals. Similarly, Botox, started out as a drug to treat painful muscle spasms of the eye and has three orphan drug approvals. It’s also approved as a drug for mass-market for a variety of ailments, including chronic migraines and wrinkles. Despite humongous pricing, recent reports show that drugs with orphan status are eclipsing many new drugs with outstanding commercial success.

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

Many top global companies’ sharp strategic focus on orphan drugs, presumably for the above reasons, is paying a rich dividend. This is evident from a number of recent reports, such as, ‘Orphan Drug Report 2019’ of Evaluate Pharma, released in April. The report says, orphan drugs will make up one-fifth of worldwide prescription sales, amounting to $242bn in spending by 2024 – much of it is going to either big pharma or big biotech players. It also found that the drugs prescribed for the treatment of rare diseases now account for seven of the 10 top-selling drugs of any kind, ranked by annual sales.

Another study of October 2019 by Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime) shows, with more of ultra-expensive drug treatments coming to market, there is a sharp jump in the number of drug super spenders. While small in number, this group of drug super spenders grew 63 percent, which resulted in $800 million in additional drug costs. In the same period, the number of drug super spenders with drug costs over $750,000 increased 38 percent. This explains, why many companies are focusing on orphan drugs for better financial results.

Conclusion:

As the above quoted report of AHIP articulated, the regulators’ primary intent behind creating lucrative incentives for orphan drugs, was to encourage drug makers to develop treatments for rare diseases by earning a modest profit. ‘Unfortunately, drug makers have responded by building lucrative business models that empower them to achieve a gross profit margin of more than 80 percent – compared to an average gross profit margin of 16 percent for the rest of the pharmaceutical industry,’ the report said.

The AHIP study also finds, from 1998 to 2017, orphan drugs were 25 times more expensive than non-orphan drugs, resulting 26-fold increase in average per-patient annual cost, while the cost of specialty and traditional drugs merely doubled. Today, 88 percent of orphan drugs cost more than $10,000 per year per patient, which will be no different even when Indian patients import the same. The paper also revealed, in 2017, seven out of ten best-selling drugs had orphan indications. And among newly launched drugs, the share of orphan drugs increased more than 4-fold, from 10 percent to 44 percent, over a 20-year period.

Coming back to the core purpose of the pharma and biotech business, as defined by the pharma organizations themselves, one would have expected the situation to be much different. Their stated business purpose – ‘Health for All’, does not seem to recognize: “Every patient deserves to get the medications they need at a cost they can afford,’ as AHIP reiterates. Whereas, “drug makers are gaming well-intentioned legislation to generate outsized profits from drugs intended to treat a small population of patients with rare diseases.” In this scenario, reaping a rich harvest with the orphan drug status seems to have become a new normal.

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.

Dynamics of Cancer Therapy Segment Remain Enigmatic

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, cancer is likely to occupy the center stage on any discussion related to the fastest growing therapy segments in the pharma or biotech industries. There are several reasons behind such probability, some of which include:

  • Cancer is not only the second leading cause of death globally, but also offer outstanding new drug treatment options, though, mostly to those who can afford.
  • Consequently, these drugs are in high demand for saving lives, but not accessible to a vast majority of those who need them the most.
  • Alongside, oncology is one of the fastest growing therapy segments in sales in many countries, including the largest and most attractive global pharma market - the United States.
  • New cancer drugs being complex, involves highly sophisticated cutting-edge technology – creating an entry barrier for many, and are generally high priced, fetching a lucrative profit margin.

These are only a few basic dynamics of the segment. Nevertheless, understanding these dynamics, in a holistic way, is indeed an enigma – caused mostly by directly conflicting arguments on many related issues, within the key stakeholders. Thus, I reckon, this issue will be an interesting area to explore in this article. Later in this discussion, I shall try to substantiate all the points raised, backed by credible data. Let me start with some causative factors, that may make comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of this segment enigmatic.

Some causative factors for triggering the enigma:

Close overlap of several contentious factors is associated with this head-scratcher. These come in a package of reasoning and counter reasoning, a few examples of which may be seen below:

  • When increasing incidence of cancer related deaths are a global problem, fast growing oncology segment, regularly adding novel drugs in its portfolio, ideally should be a signal for containing this problem. Whereas, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) reports, cancer drugs are beyond reach to millions, for high cost. Nonetheless, the cancer drug sales keep shooting north.
  • Nearer home, while Indian anti-cancer drug market growth has, reportedly, ‘outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so,’ another study report underscores, ‘Indians have poor access to essential anti-cancer drugs.’
  • Although, a 2019 report of W.H.O highlights: Expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure, innovator companies also have their counter argument ready. They claim, higher prices ‘are necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs.’
  • When innovator companies keep touting that many new therapies are path-breaking concepts, researchers don’t find these drugs much superior to the existing ones in outcomes, except jaw-dropping prices.
  • Despite the above argument of research-based drug players to justify unreasonable pricing, several studies have established that the development cost of new cancer drugs is more than recouped in a short period, and some companies are making even more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending.
  • While several pharma companies claim that they are providing patients with access to a wide variety of cancer medication through Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), the findings of several published research on the same concluded, ‘the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

Let me now briefly substantiate each of the above points raised in this article.

Incidence of cancer and the oncology market:

Now, while substantiating the above points, let me go back to where I started from. According to the W.H.O fact sheet of September 12, 2018, cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and is responsible for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 – about 1 in 6 deaths was due to cancer. Approximately 70 percent of deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries. The Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) estimated around 1.4 million new cancer cases in 2016, which is expected to rise to 1.7 million cases by 2020.

According to ‘World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024’ of Evaluate Pharma, ‘Oncology prevails as the leading therapy segment in 2024, with a 19.4 percent market share and sales reaching USD 237bn.’ The report also highlights: ‘Oncology is the area with the largest proportion of clinical development spending with 40 percent of total pipeline expenditure.’

Similarly, the Indian Oncology market is found to be growing at 20 percent every year and is likely to remain so for the coming 3-5years. In 2012 the cancer market was valued at USD 172m (quoted from Frost & Sullivan). Another report also reiterates, the oncology market in India has outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so.

Poor access to cancer drugs:

Despite the impressive growth of oncology segment, ‘high prices for cancer medicines are “impairing the capacity of health care systems to provide affordable, population wide access,” emphasizes a recent ‘Technical Report’ of W.H.O. I shall further elaborate on this report in just a bit. However, before that, let me cite an India specific example of the same. The March 2019 study, published in the BMJ Global Health, also highlighted, the mean availability of essential anti-cancer medicines across all hospitals and pharmacies surveyed in India was less than the WHO’s target of 80 percent.

Cancer drug pricing conundrum:

The recent ‘Technical Report of W.H.O – ‘Pricing of cancer medicines and its impacts’ confronts this issue head on. It clearly articulates, the enduring debates on the unaffordability of cancer medicines and the ever-growing list of medicines and combination therapies with annual costs in the hundreds of thousands, suggests that the status quo is not acceptable. The global community must find a way to correct the irrational behaviors that have led to unsustainable prices of cancer medicines. Thus, correction of unaffordable prices is fundamental to the sustainability of access to cancer medicines. Further inertia on this issue and half-hearted commitments from all stakeholders, including governments and the pharmaceutical industry, will only invite distrust and disengagement from the public, the report emphasized.

Another 2019 WHO report says expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure. It pinpointed: “Pharmaceutical companies set prices according to their commercial goals, with a focus on extracting the maximum amount that a buyer is willing to pay for a medicine.” It also reiterated that the standard treatment for breast cancer can drain 10 years of average annual income in India. Unaffordable pricing of cancer medicines set by such intent often prevents their full benefits being realized by scores of cancer patients, the report adds. Yet another paper expressed similar concern about ‘the unsustainability of the high costs of cancer care, and how that affects not only individual patients, but also society at large.

What does the industry say?

The industry holds a different view altogether. According to another recent news, one such company quoted their 2017 Janssen U.S. Transparency Report,” which states: “We have an obligation to ensure that the sale of our medicines provides us with the resources necessary to invest in future research and development.” This is interesting, as it means that even higher pricing may be necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

What do research studies reveal?

There are several research studies often disputing the industry quoted claim of R&D spend of over a couple of billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market. They also keep repeating, this is an arduous and time-intensive process, involving humongous financial risk of failure. One such ‘Original investigation’ titled, ‘Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval,’ published by JAMA Internal Medicine in its November 2017 issue, presents some interesting facts.

The study brings to the fore: ‘The cost to develop a cancer drug is USD 648.0 million, a figure significantly lower than prior estimates. The revenue since approval is substantial (median, USD 1658.4 million; range, USD 204.1 million to USD 22 275.0 million). This analysis provides a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing.’ Thus, the cost of new cancer drug development is more than recovered in a short period, with as much as over 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending, in many cases, as the analysis concluded.

Even top oncologists, such as Dr. Peter Bach, the Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s (MSK)Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, along with other physicians at MSK drew attention to the high price of a newly approved cancer drug. According to available reports, ‘two recently approved CAR-T cell drugs – one is USD 373,000 for a single dose, the other USD 475,000 - are benchmarks on the road to ever-higher cancer drug price tags.’

It happens in India too:

Although, on May 19, 2019, NPPA announced almost 90 percent price reduction of nine anti-cancer drugs, curiously even those cancer drugs, which are not patent protected, continued to be sold at a high price. For example, according to the September 2018 Working Paper Series, of the Indian Institute of management Calcutta (IIM C), the maximum price for Pemetrexed, a ‘not patented’ cancer product was Rs 73,660, though, it is also available at Rs 4,500. Similarly, the price of Bortezomib was between Rs 60,360 and Rs 12,500 and Paclitaxel between Rs 19, 825.57 and Rs 7,380.95. It is intriguing to note that no pricing policy for patented drugs, as promised in the current Drug Policy document, hasn’t been implemented, as yet. 

Does Pharma’s ‘Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) work? 

Different pharma companies claim their addressing access to cancer care in developing countries. A report also mentions: ‘16 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are engaged in 129 diverse access initiatives in low- and middle-income countries.’ Whereas, a research study, questioning the transparency of these initiatives, concluded, ‘our results suggest that numerous drug company sponsored PAPs exist to provide patients with access to a wide variety of medications but that many details about these programs remain unclear. As a result, the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

During the famous Glivec patent case, which went against Novartis at the Supreme Court of India, the company’s PAP for Glivec in the country, also came under focus. Many articles, with mutually conflicting views of the company and independent experts were published regarding this program. One such write-up emphasized with eulogy, “Novartis provides Glivec free of charge to 16,000 patients in India, roughly 95 percent of those who need it via the Novartis – Glivec International Patient Assistance Program. The remaining 5 percent is either reimbursed, insured, or participate in a very generous co-payment program. Thus, not granting a patent for Glivec really hasn’t prevented patients from getting this life-saving medication.”

However, many were, reportedly, not convinced by Novartis’ claims and counter-argued: “Our calculation says there are estimated 20,000 new patients every year suffering from cancer, this means after ten years there will be two lakh (200,000) patients, hence the program is not enough.” The views of many independent global experts on the same are not very different. For example, even Professor Carlos M. Correa had articulated: “The reported donation of Glivec by Novartis to ‘eligible patients’ under the ‘Glivec International Patient Assistance Program’ (GIPAP) may be a palliative but does not ensure a sustainable supply of the product to those in need.” Be that as it may, new studies now question whether novel anti-cancer drugs are worth their extra cost.

Are novel cancer drugs worth the extra cost?

According to a September 26, 2019 report, the results of two studies investigating the links between clinical benefit and pricing in Europe and the USA, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, September 2019, reveal an interesting finding. It found, many new anti-cancer medicines add little value for patients compared to standard treatment and are rarely worth the extra cost. Interestingly, in the midst of this imbroglio, the world continues taking a vow globally to mitigate the cancer patient related issues on February the fourth, every year.

A vow is taken globally on every 4th February, but…:

On every February 04 – The World Cancer Day - an initiative of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), the world takes a noble vow. Everybody agrees on its broad goal that: ‘Life-saving cancer diagnosis and treatment should be equal for all – no matter who you are, your level of education, level of income or where you live in the world. By closing the equity gap, we can save millions of lives.’

UICC also noted, as many cancers are now preventable or can be cured, more and more people are surviving the disease. However, for the vast majority people, the chances of surviving cancer are not getting better. Socioeconomic status of individuals leaves a significant impact on whether one’s cancer is diagnosed, treated and cared for, in an appropriate and cost-effective manner. A customer-focused understanding of the dynamics of the cancer therapy segment, although may help effective ground action, but the status quo continues for various critical reasons. Even on the World Cancer Day 2019, the oncology pricing debate continued.

Conclusion:

The business dynamics for the cancer therapy segment, continues to remain enigmatic regardless of public emotion and sentiments attached to these drugs. Patients access and affordability to the most effective drug at the right time can save or take lives. Surprisingly, despite healthy growth of anti-cancer drugs, especially the newer and pricey ones, the number of deaths due to cancer is also fast increasing, and is the second largest cause of death today.

The pricing conundrum of cancer drugs remains the subject of a raging debate, globally. Nevertheless, the drug industry keeps justifying the mind-boggling prices, with the same sets of contentious reasons, even when various investigative research studies negate those claims. Moreover, when general public expects the drug industry to innovate both in the new drug discovery and also on making the drug prices affordable to a large section of the population, the industry doesn’t exhibit any interest to talk about the latter. Instead, they talk about PAP initiatives for improving access to such drugs. Notwithstanding independent research studies concluding that PAPs lack transparency, and is not an alternative for all those who want to fight the disease, in the most effective way.

The arguments and counterarguments continue. More effective cancer drugs keep coming with lesser number of cancer patients having access to those medicines, as patents prevail over the patients. The reverberation of the power of Big Pharma to stay in the chosen course – come what may, can also be felt from the reported statement of politically the most powerful person in the world – the President of the United States. In view of this, both the business and market dynamics of the cancer therapy segment is likely to remain enigmatic – at least, in the foreseeable future?

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.

 

Continues ‘The Cat And Mouse Game’ In Pharma Business?

Posted on by
Reply

Many are already aware of the critical factors that make generic drugs so important for patients – virtually for all. These don’t just facilitate greater access to health care – offering affordable alternatives to high-priced off-patent innovative drugs. This is as relevant in the largest pharma market in the world – the United States (US), just as in India. Let me illustrate this point with two examples – one from the US and the other from India.

According to US-FDA, ‘9 out of 10 prescriptions filled, are for generic drugs’ in the United states, as off-patent branded generic drugs cost more than their generic equivalents. The US drug regulator explains, ‘Increasing the availability of generic drugs helps to create competition in the marketplace, which then helps to make treatment more affordable and increases access to healthcare for more patients.’

However, unlike the US, there prevails a unique perception difference even within generic drugs – between branded and unbranded generics. The Indian Survey, undertaken to review and analyze various facts on branded and equivalent unbranded generic medicines, found a huge difference in prices between them in the country. Interestingly, as the researchers also noted, although, more consumers want an economical alternative to high priced branded generics, most physicians do not prefer unbranded generic medicines.

There is another important point worth noting regarding India made generic drugs. Although, Indian pharma sector caters to around 40 percent of generic demand in the US, as IBEF reports, many Americans nurture serious apprehensions on the quality of generic drugs manufactured even by India’s top drug companies. 

This is quite similar to apprehension that exists in India between the quality branded and unbranded generic medicines in India. The only difference is – the above perception in India is not based on impartial and credible scientific studies, whereas it is not so in America. The New York Times report, published on May 11, 2019 vindicates this point. It questioned: “Americans Need Generic Drugs. But Can They Trust Them? The fake quality-control data, bird infestations and toxic impurities at the overseas plants that could be making your medication.” Incidentally, there aren’t any such large-scale accusations regarding dubious quality of drugs manufactured by Big Pharma. 

On the other hand, big pharma players have long been accused of drug price gouging or price-fixing of life-saving drugs, primarily to maximize earnings by ‘extending’ product patent-life. Curiously, in recent times, even the generic drug players are being accused of following a similar practice. Thus, in this article, I shall explore how generic drug players are also trying to hoodwink measures to bring down the drug price, either through price control or through the encouragement of intense competition – playing a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were, whenever an opportunity comes. If it continues and probably it will, what is the way ahead? Let me begin by recapitulating a historic pace-setting move in the global generic market by an Indian drug player.

A historic pace-setting move by an Indian generic drug player:

Being a major exporter of generic drugs in many developed, developing and even poor countries around the world, India is often termed as ‘the pharmacy of the world.’ That apart, a historical move in this space, by a top domestic player – Cipla, earned global accolades, at the turn of this new millennium. In 2001, Cipla slashed the price of its triple-therapy drug ”cocktails” for HIV-AIDS – being sold by MNCs, ranging from USD 10,000/ USD 15,000 a year to USD 350 a year per patient to a doctors’ group working in Africa.With the generic industry’s focus on a deeper bottom line, the scenario has changed now. Finding ways and means for the price increase, evading both competitive pressure and also drug price control, as in India, has turned into a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were.

Generic drug pricing – ‘a cat and mouse game?’

Pricing pressure, especially for generic drugs, from patients, payers, politicians and governments, is gradually becoming more intense. More the pressure greater is the effort of affected players to come out of it, in any way –akin to a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were. Although, it has recently started in the USA, the same exists in India, since 1970, when the first drug price control was introduced in the country. Intriguingly, in the midst of this toughest ever drug price control, phenomenal rise of almost all top Indian companies, including the top ranked company in the Indian pharma market commenced – from scratch. Nonetheless, to get a feel of how is this game being played out, let me start with the Indian scenario.

How this game is played in India to evade price control:

Instead of taking a deep dive into the history of drug price control in India, let me give a bird’s eye view of a few mechanisms, out of many, used to evade price control, since it commenced. The idea is to give just a feel of how this ‘cat and mouse game’ game pans out, with a few of such examples in a sequential order, since 1970, as much as possible, by:

  • Including price decontrolled molecule in the FDC formulations.
  • Replacing a price-controlled molecule by a similar decontrolled one, keeping the brand name unchanged, when the number of controlled molecules came down.
  • Making a major shift towards selling more of higher-priced decontrolled molecules, jettisoning low priced controlled molecules.
  • Resorting to vigorous campaigns, when the government started encouraging prescription of low-priced generic molecules, to ensure further shift to branded FDC prescriptions, alongside image enhancement of branded generics over equivalent unbranded ones. Its outcome is visible in the above Indian Survey on the image of branded and unbranded generics.

Has Indian pharma industry succeeded in this game?

It appears so and gets reflected in the CAGR of the industry. According to IBEF, “The country’s pharmaceutical industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.4 per cent over 2015–20 to reach US$ 55 billion.” I underscore, this is value growth.

Thus, the point, I reckon, that the government should ponder: How both can happen, at the same time – price control is bringing down drug prices, extending real benefits to patients on the ground, and at the same time the industry is recording an impressive growth rate in value terms?  Whatever it means, let’s now try to explore, how such ‘cat and mouse game’ is being played to increase generic drug prices in the United States.

How similar game is played in the US to increase generic drug price:

On May 10, 2019, international media reported that ‘44 US states announced a lawsuit alleging an anti-competitive conspiracy to artificially inflate prices for more than 100 drugs, some by more than 1,000 percent.’ This lawsuit is based on an investigation involving a number of generic drug companies. The process, which took five-years to complete, accused twenty generic drug players. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, whose parent company is based in Israel was, reportedly, named as the ringleader of the price-fixing. The company raised prices of around 112 generic formulations.

Other companies, reportedly, named in the complaint, include Pfizer, Novartis subsidiary Sandoz, Mylan, and seven Indian drug companies, including Lupin, Aurobindo, Dr. Reddy’s, Wockhardt, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries (a subsidiary of Sun Pharma) and Glenmark. Some of the 15 senior company executives who were individually named in the lawsuit for their involvementin this alleged “multibillion-dollar fraud ”belong to Teva, Sandoz and Mylan.

The ‘cat and mouse game’ in this case is slightly different. Instead of government price control, the US drug regulator encouraged intense generic competition to bring down the price. When the priced did not come down as expected, the State of Connecticut, reportedly, began investigating select generic drug price increases in July 2014. Subsequently, other states also joined the investigation, and uncovered the reason for prices not coming down.

According to the complaint, between July 2013 and January 2015, Teva significantly raised prices on approximately 112 different generic drugs. Of those 112 different drugs, Teva had colluded with its competitors on at least 86 of them. The complaint noted: “Teva had understandings with its highest quality competitors to lead and follow each other’s price increases, and did so with great frequency and success, resulting in many billions of dollars of harm to the national economy over a period of several years.” In this way, the impact of intense competition on drug prices, was made ineffective.

Not the first time, it was detected:

The 2019 anti-trust lawsuit against the generic drug makers may be ‘the biggest price-fixing scheme in the US history’, but not the first lawsuit of this kind in America. A similar lawsuit for illegal price-fixing against six generic companies, was filed by the states in 2016, as well, which is still being litigated. The 2019 case is a sweeping version of the same and is the result of a much wider investigation. It indicates, instead of taking corrective measures, the ‘cat and mouse game’ still continues. However, almost all the companies have vehemently denied this allegation.

Is this game existential in nature of the business?

One may well argue that such ‘cat and mouse game’ with the government is existential in nature, for the generic drug business. When price control or intense market competition brings down the price to such a level, it becomes a matter of survival of most businesses. There doesn’t seem to remain enough financial interest for them to remain in the market. If and when it happens, causing shortage of cheaper generic drugs, patients’ health interest gets very adversely affected. It also prompts the manufacturers to find a way out for the survival of the business. This is understandable. But it needs to be established, supported by scientific studies.

An off the cuff solution:

A general and off the cuff solution to the above issue would naturally be, there should be a right balance between affordability of most consumers and the business interest of the drug makers. This broad pointer is also right and understandable. But again, no one knows the expected upper limit of the generic drug profit margin for their manufacturers – where hardly any breakthrough and cost-intensive R&D is involved. Equally challenging is to know – below what margin, generic players, by and large, loose interest in this business?

What do some available facts indicate?

According to the year-end report of the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council (Pharmexcil) the total pharma exports from India has been pegged at USD 19.14 billion for 2018-19. This represents a growth of 10.72 per cent over USD 17.28 billion in thelast year. It further reported, “The top 25 export destinations contribute 76.52 per cent of the formulation exports amounting to USD 10.38 billion. Among these, the US continues to be the largest export destination with over 38.62 per cent of the total generic exports to that country at USD 5.24 billion.” Does it mean business as usual, despite ‘price-fixing’ law suits in the US, since 2016?

Similar impression one would probably get from the Indian scenario, as well. Notably, despite price control, which is continuing since last five decades, the growth rate of the Indian pharma market, which is dominated by branded generics, remains very impressive.According to the January 2019 report of IBEF: “The country’s pharmaceutical industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.4 per cent over 2015–20 to reach USD 55 billion.” So also the same game, probably!

Conclusion:

It appears, there is certainly a huge reputation or image crisis for the generic drug industry, as such, due to such alleged delinquencies. However, from the business perspective, the manufacturers are still having enough leeway to move on with similar measures, supported by fresh thinking. At the same time, it seems unlikely to have any form of drug price control in the United States, at least, in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, price pressure due to cut-throat competition could even be more intensive, as it gets reflected even in the US-FDA statements.

Nearer home, the Indian generic drug business has been hit with a double whammy – allegations for dubious drug quality standards, on the one hand, and price manipulation on the other, besides dented reputation and image – widening trust gap with patients and governments.

Moreover, unlike the best export market even for generic drugs – the United States, India has been following some patchy policy measures for health care, as a whole. The drug price control system is one such. Till a holistic policy on health care is put in place for all, backed by an effective monitoring system, The Indian price control system may remain like a ‘maze’, as it were, with several ways to hoodwink it.

Hence, the ‘cat and mouse game’, albeit in a different format, is likely to continue, until one gets caught, or till all concerned puts their act together – putting patients at the center of the core business strategy.

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.