How Creative Is Pharma Industry?

Posted on April 15, 2019 by Tapan Ray

“Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business,” said the management guru of all times – Peter Drucker, decades ago. He further added, “The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer, so well the product or service fits him and sells itself.” What needs to be underscored in this visionary articulation of Drucker is, effective marketing should create such a strong pull for a product or service that renders hard selling less relevant.

The word ‘innovation’ is used frequently within the pharma industry, and more by the multi-national players on a specific context. The purpose is mainly to douse stakeholder concern on high prices of innovative drugs – building a narrative around expensive, complex and time-intensive drug innovation process. That said, just as creativity is necessary to discover new drugs, creative minds also help in effectively reducing the cost of innovation – creating more customers for the company.

Curiously, in this debate the other key business function – ‘marketing’, often takes a back seat, with its usage getting generally restricted to product features and benefits, including ‘freebies’ of various kinds. Neither is there any palpable effort to make the culture of ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ prevail across the organization, for overcoming several critical growth barriers that keep looming over all functional areas.

Is it happening because of a hubris, as it were, within the pharma and biotech industry? This article will try to figure out why this has been happening over decades and would also ponder whether the time is ripe for changing the charted path of the business model. For a clear understanding of all, let me start with the difference between creativity and innovation from the business perspective.

Creativity – a fundamental requirement in a business, is different from innovation:

This was examined in the article titled, ‘The Importance of Creativity in Business,’ published by Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, on November 09, 2017. It emphasized, although “creativity” and “innovation” are often used interchangeably, these are two separate concepts. “Creativity is different because it is a mechanism to being innovative. You can have great ideas, but not be innovative,” the paper underscored. It brought to the fore that ‘creativity’ – being the fundamental ingredient for being ‘innovative’, is essential in the highly competitive business environment. It fuels big ideas, challenges the employees’ way of thinking, and opens the door to new business opportunities.

The IBM study also confirms this fact:

The study titled, ‘‘Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Study,’ led by the IBM Institute for Business Value and IBM Strategy & Change, also confirmed the above fact. The study is the fourth edition of IBM’s biennial Global CEO Study series, involving more than 1,500 Chief Executive Officers from 60 countries and 33 industries worldwide.

The study reported, CEOs selected creativity as the most important leadership attribute and the number one factor for future business success. It added: ‘Creative leaders invite disruptive innovation, encourage others to drop outdated approaches and take balanced risks. They are open-minded and inventive in expanding their management and communication styles, particularly to engage with a new generation of employees, partners and customers.’ Importantly, ‘creativity’ ranked higher than rigor, management discipline, integrity or even vision, as each of these will require creativity. According to the study, successfully navigating through an increasing complex world of ‘accelerated industry transformation, growing volumes of data, rapidly evolving customer preferences, can be overcome by instilling ‘creativity’ throughout an organization.

‘Necessity is the mother of invention’ – does it apply to pharma, as well?

In today’s complex business environment, pharma’s business challenges are spreading rapidly across many areas. Besides innovation of new drugs, following are four broad, but critical areas, where fostering of creativity, innovative thinking and invention of game changing ideas, across the organization, I reckon, can fetch a sustainable return, in a win-win way:

Intense ‘pricing pressure’ to make innovative drugs affordable for greater access to patients: Just as innovative ideas are of fundamental importance to develop new drugs; disruptive innovative ideas in this area, can help resolve this issue, effectively – not any incremental measure.

Declining corporate image and eroding public trust: Placing patients’ interest at the center of the business model, and then effective marketing of the same, can reverse this trend, with better business outcomes.

Lack of business transparency: Make business processes, including pricing, sales and marketing more transparent, by leveraging the power of data with modern technology.

Declining per dollar marketing productivity: Move away from the old and traditional business models to find a new pathway for success, using the process of simulation, on an ongoing basis.

While above are some of the pressing needs for steering the course of pharma and biotech industry, the business keeps charting the same patch, with a bit of tweaking, here or there. Thus, the good old saying – ‘necessity is the mother of invention,’ still doesn’t work in pharma. The question, therefore, is why? We shall discuss it in just a bit. Before that, let me explore how creative the pharma industry, joining some critical dots.

How creative is pharma and biotech industry?

To explore this area, I shall try to touch upon the following two points:

Is there any perceptible financial impact on pharma sales revenue, net profit and gross operating margin, for not creatively resolving some critical growth barriers, as stated above?

Where does pharma and biotech industry stand in global ‘creativity ranking’?

For this purpose, when I look at the following four major areas, some interesting findings emerge:

Top 10 in sales revenue.
Top 10 in net profit
Average Gross and Operating Margin
Creativity ranking of some major pharma and biotech companies

Top 10 in sales revenue:

The overall sales revenue of the pharma/biotech companies remains healthy. On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be any storm signal. According to Market Research Reports, Inc. the top 10 companies on 2018 sales revenue, are as follows:

Pfizer Inc.: USD 53.647 Billion
Novartis AG: USD 51.90 Billion
Roche Holding AG: USD 45.5896 Billion
Johnson & Johnson: USD 40.734 Billion
Sanofi S.A: USD 39.288 Billion
Merck & Co., Inc.: USD 37.689 Billion
AbbVie Inc.: USD 32.753 Billion
Amgen: USD 23.7 Billion
GSK: USD 22.968 Billion
Bristol-Myers Squibb: USD 22.600 Billion

Top 10 in net profit:

There isn’t any storm signal visible in this area, either, as it is seen in isolation. According to Statista, the 2018 ranking of the top 10 biotech and pharmaceutical companies worldwide, based on net income, as appeared in the Financial Times 2018 equity screener database, is as follows:

Rank	Company	Net income ($ Billion)
1.	Johnson & Johnson (USA)	15
2.	Novartis (Switzerland)	13.8
3.	Pfizer (USA)	11.9
4.	Roche (Switzerland)	10.5
5.	Amgen (USA)	8.5
6.	Gilead (USA)	7.7
7.	AbbVie USA)	6.8
8.	Novo Nordisk (Denmark)	6.0
9.	Bayer (Germany)	4.3
10.	Biogen (USA)	4.1

Let’s now look at the average gross and operating margin in the pharma and biotech industry.

Average Gross and operating Margin – still the best:

This also looks healthy, as compared to others. According to the January 2018 study by New York University’s Stern School of Business, average gross margin of 481 biotech and 237 pharma and biotech companies was reported at 70.71 percent and 68.60 percent, respectively. And their operating margins were at 25.45 percent and 24.89 percent, severally – against 12.32 percent of all the 7209 companies surveyed.

Creativity ranking of some commonly known pharma and biotech companies:

Here there seems to be an issue. When I look at the 2018 Forbes list of ‘The World’s Most Innovative Companies,’ it will be challenging to find any of the above top names of the pharma and biotech companies within the Top 100 ranking. Just to illustrate the point, let me reproduce below some commonly known names of our industry:

Rank	Company	Country	12-month sales growth%	Innovation Premium%
#7.	Incyte	USA	38.93	70.59
#14.	Celltrion	S. Korea	45.25	62.3
#16.	Regeneron Pharmaceuticals	USA	20.82	61.11
#17.	Vertex Pharmaceuticals	USA	46.2	60.93
#22.	Alexion Pharmaceuticals	USA	17.32	58.04
#82.	Allergan	Ireland	9.4	37.59

Some interesting possibilities:

The above data, points towards some interesting possibilities:

Because of its sales and profit margin remaining generally lucrative, the focus on innovation of most pharma and biotech companies, get restricted to new drug discovery and development processes.

Top management’s encouragement of creativity across all functions of the organization appears inadequate, to successfully navigate through the key growth barriers, to maintain future business sustainability.

But, some critical signals do indicate: ‘shape up or ship out’:

But the real picture isn’t as rosy. Analysis of some key trends does capture several critical storm signals for the industry According to the July 09, 2018 study of EY (Ernst and Young): ‘Margins of pharmaceutical companies are continuing to decline – the future lies in new ecosystems.’ It further indicated: Although the margins of the 21 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are declining, the businesses ‘are still growing, thanks to blockbuster drugs and new active ingredients against cancer. 40 per cent of the active ingredients that are currently being developed worldwide are cancer drugs.’

The paper concluded, the future lies in designing completely new types of ecosystems and business models. With the aim of providing comprehensive support for healthcare customers, including patients. “Data-driven business models will permanently change the pharmaceutical industry,” the paper articulated. The study forecasted, ‘life Science startups will take over between 30 and 45 per cent of the market by 2030.’ Isn’t this a clear signal, especially for large and longtime pharma players to ‘shape up or ship out?’

Conclusion:

Let me now revert to what Peter Drucker said on two basic functions of a business – Innovation and Marking. None can question pharma on its consistently bringing to market innovative drugs to effectively tackle many diseases, including complex and life-threatening ones. Given, that ongoing new drug development is the lifeblood of growth of pharma business. Nevertheless, that aspect of innovation is mostly perceived as an exclusive internal business value for most companies. The majority of stakeholders perceives the value of drug innovation as inclusive, when it is made accessible to a large population of patients at an affordable price, along with a decent Return on Investment (ROI) for the corporation. This expectation cannot be wished away. Instead, its core concept should drive the other basic function of business – marketing

This stage can be attained by building an innovative organization, fostering the culture and process of ‘creativity’ – across its functions. It is now a fundamental requirement for pharma and biotech companies. Beyond new product development, innovation immensely helps organizations navigating through strong headwinds to achieve its financial goals and objectives, in an inclusive manner. When IT – another knowledge industry, can reduce the cost of innovation through creative processes, across all functions, making its product and services affordable to a large population, e.g. Reliance Jio, why not Pharma? In that sense, I reckon, pharma and biotech companies are yet to become creative – in a holistic way.

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.

Innovative ‘Medicines Too Damn Expensive’: Health Risk For Billions of People

Posted on March 18, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Most ‘medicines are too damn expensive. And a key part of the problem is the lack of consistent information about drug pricing. It’s not often that the Trump administration and the anti-poverty NGO Oxfam find themselves singing from the same hymn sheet.’ This was articulated in the article carrying a headline, ‘No One Knows The True Cost Of Medicines, And Blaming Other Countries Won’t Help,’ published by Forbes on March 03, 2019.

In the oldest democracy of the world, on the eve of the last Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, September 2016 captured the public anger on skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, which they ranked near the top of consumers’ health care concerns. Accordingly, politicians in both parties, including the Presidential candidates, vowed to do something about it.

Ironically, even so close to General Election in the largest democracy of the world, no such data is available, nor it is one of the top priority election issues. Nevertheless, the discontentment of the general public in this area is palpable. The final push of election propaganda of any political party is now unlikely to include health care as one of the key focus areas for them. This is because, many seemingly trivial ones are expected to fetch more votes, as many believe.

In this area, I shall dwell on the ‘mystic’ area of jaw dropping, arbitrary drug pricing, especially for innovative lifesaving drugs – drawing examples from some recent research studies in this area.

High drug prices and associated health risks for billions of people:

New Oxfam research paper, titled: ‘Harmful Side Effects: How drug companies undermine global health,’ published on September 18, 2018, ferreted out some facts, which, in general terms, aren’t a big surprise for many. It highlighted the following:

Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer – systematically hide their profits in overseas tax havens.

By charging very high prices for their products, they appear to deprive developing countries more than USD 100 million every year – money that is urgently needed to meet health needs of people in these countries.

In the UK, these four companies may be underpaying around £125m of tax each year.

These corporations also deploy massive lobbying operations to influence trade, tax and health policies in their favor and give their damaging behavior greater apparent legitimacy.

Tax dodging, high prices and political influencing by pharmaceutical companies exacerbate the yawning gap between rich and poor, between men and women, and between advanced economies and developing ones.

The impact of this situation is profound and is likely to further escalate, if left unchecked, the reason being self-regulation of pharma industry is far from desirable in this area.

As discussed in the article, titled ‘Why Rising Drug Prices May Be the Biggest Risk to Your Health,’ published in Healthline on July 18, 2018, left unchecked, the rising cost of prescription drugs could cripple healthcare, as well as raise health risks for millions of people. Although this specific article was penned in the American context, it is also relevant in India, especially for lifesaving patented drugs, for treating many serious ailments, such as cancer.

Is pharma pricing arbitrary?

The answer to this question seems to be no less than an emphatic ‘yes’. Vindicating this point, the above Forbes article says: ‘It’s a myth that the costs of medicines need to be high, to cover the research & development costs of pharmaceutical companies.’

Explaining it further, the paper underscored, ‘Prices in the pharma industry aren’t set based on a particular acceptable level of profit, or in relation to the cost of production. They’re established based on a calculation of the absolute maximum that enough people are willing to pay.’

The myth: ‘High R&D cost is the reason for high drug price’:

Curiously, ample evidences indicate that this often-repeated argument of the drug companies’, is indeed a myth. To illustrate the point, I am quoting below just a few examples, as available from both independent and also the industry sources that would bust this myth:

My article, titled “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments,” published in this blog on August 18, 2014, explains how, irrespective of R&D costs, the companies stretch new drug pricing to the farthest edge for profit maximization.

Several research studies show that actual R&D cost to discover and develop a New Molecular Entity (NME) is much less than what the pharma and biotech industry claims. Again, in another article, titled ‘The R&D Factor: One of the Greatest Myths of the Industry,” published in this blog on March 25, 2013, I also quoted the erstwhile CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on this subject. He clearly enunciated in an interview with Reuters that: “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development… It’s entirely achievable.”

In addition, according to the BMJ report: ‘More than four fifths of all funds for basic research to discover new drugs and vaccines come from public sources,’ and not incurred by respective drug companies.

Interestingly, other research data reveals that ‘drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them.’ This was published by the BBC New with details, in an article, titled ‘Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits.’

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends transparency in drug pricing:

The report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on ‘Access to Medicines’ released on September 14, 2016 emphasized the need of transparency in this area of the pharma sector. It recommended, governments should require manufacturers and distributors to disclose to drug regulatory and procurement authorities information pertaining to:

The costs of R&D, production, marketing and distribution of health technology being procured or given marketing approval to each expense category separated; and

Any public funding received in the development of any health technology, including tax credits, subsidies and grants.

But the bottom-line is, not much, if any, progress has been made by any UN member countries participating in this study. The overall situation today still remains as it has always been.

Conclusion:

The Oxfam report, as mentioned above, captures how arbitrarily fixed exorbitant drug pricing, creates a profound adverse impact on the lives of billions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries. Let me quote here only one such example from this report corroborating this point. It underlined that the breast cancer drug trastuzumab, costing around USD 38,000 for a 12-month course, is almost five times the average income for a South African household. The situation in India for such drugs, I reckon, is no quite different.

To make drug pricing transparent for all, the paper recommends, “attacking that system of secrecy around R&D costs is key.” Pharma players have erected a wall around them, as it were, by giving reasons, such as, ‘commercial secret, commercial information, no we can’t find out about this’…if you question intellectual property, it’s like you’re questioning God.” The report adds.

In India, the near-term solution for greater access to new and innovative lifesaving drugs to patients, is to implement a transparent patented drug pricing policy mechanism in the country. This is clearly enshrined in the current national pharma policy document, but has not seen the light of the day, just yet.

In the battle against disease, life-threatening ailments are getting increasingly more complex to treat, warranting newer and innovative medicines. But these ‘drugs are too damn expensive’.

In the midst of this complicated scenario, billions of people across the world are getting a sense of being trapped between ‘the devil and the deep blue sea.’Occasional price tweaking of such drugs by the regulator are no more than ‘palliative’ measures. Whereas, a long-term solution to this important issue by the policy makers are now absolutely necessary for public health interest, especially in a country like India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on October 15, 2018 by Tapan Ray

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means:

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals. Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states: “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country. The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Innovation: Is Big Pharma Talking Differently?

Posted on September 17, 2018 by Tapan Ray

“Nearly 2 billion people have no access to basic medicines, causing a cascade of preventable misery and suffering. Good health is impossible without access to pharmaceutical products.” The World Health Organization’s (WHO) ‘Access to Medicine’ report on ‘Ten years in public health 2007–2017’ made this observation.

It also reemphasized: “A significant proportion of the world’s population, especially in developing countries, has yet to derive much benefit from innovations that are commonplace elsewhere.” Despite this, continued lobbying of many pharma companies for TRIPS-plus measures and legislation, the breaching of laws or codes relating to corruption and unethical marketing, and several blatant instances of company misconduct continues, even today.

In the midst of this situation, has Big Pharma started thinking differently about the purpose of innovation? I shall try to explore the ground reality in this article.

The argument of Big Pharma:

In response to the above observation or anything akin to that, Big Pharma has counter arguments, which are rather contentious, as many believe. They generally say, it is the responsibility of the different governments to alleviate health misery of the citizens, and not theirs. In tandem, they keep repeating the same old argument, underscoring lower prices of innovative drugs would lead to lower profit generation, significantly slowing down the process of innovation.

Drug innovation follows an arduous path and an expensive process:

Big Pharma wants people to comprehend about what it entails in the journey of discovering a New Molecular Entity (NME) and converting it to a safe and effective medicine.

For example, in its booklet Bayer explained: ‘it takes about ten to twelve years to develop a new drug. during this time, highly qualified scientists from a variety of disciplines work on filtering out a suitable active ingredient from an enormous number of compounds. Between 5,000 and 10,000 compounds are rigorously studied in numerous laboratory tests and the best ones further optimized. out of four or five drug candidates that are then tested on humans in clinical studies often only one substance is approved and becomes available to physicians and patients.”

The entire process reportedly takes around 14 years, and according to a 2016 study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development - developing a new prescription drug, which gains marketing approval, is estimated to cost drug manufacturers USD 2.6 billion. Besides, a new analysis conducted at Forbes finds that getting a single drug to market may involve an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale. It concludes, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects, spend USD 5 billion per new medicine.

Drug innovation is only for those who can afford:

As is being witnessed by many, Big Pharma always tend to argue that high R&D costs drive new drug prices up in pharma. Moving a step further, that drug innovation is for only those patients who can afford, was justified even by the CEO of a major constituent of Big Pharma. An article published in Forbes Magazine on December 05, 2013 wrote: “At the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference this week, Bayer AG CEO, Marijn Dekkers, is reported to have said that Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western patients that can afford it.”

How strong is the justification for high new drug cost?

Instead of believing the pharma argument on its face value, it will be worthwhile to go for a dip-stick analysis. One such analysis, titled “Pharmaceutical industry profits and research and development”, published by the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy on November 17, 2017, presents some interesting facts.

It says, the pharmaceutical industry is a high-fixed-cost and low-marginal-cost industry. This means, as the authors explain, that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is very high and the process is risky, while the cost of producing an extra unit of a product that is on the market is frequently “pennies a pill”. It also, indicates, though there is a disagreement about the exact cost of bringing a new drug to market, there is general recognition that the process costs run a fewhundreds of millions of dollars per new drug. Thus, innovative drugs are supposed to be somewhat more expensive to many patients. But how much – is the question to ponder, I reckon.

An example of a new drug pricing:

Let me choose here, as an example, the pricing of one of the most contentious, but undoubtedly a breakthrough medicine – Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) of Gilead. Sofosbuvir was discovered in 2007 – not by Gilead Sciences, but by Michael Sofia, a scientist at Pharmasset. The drug was first tested on human successfully in 2010. However, on January 17, 2012 Gilead announced completion of the acquisition of Pharmasset at approximately USD 11.2 billion.

Subsequently, on December 06, 2013, US-FDA approved Gilead’s Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) for the treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C. Sovaldi was priced at USD 1,000 a day in the U.S., costingUSD 84,000 for a course of treatment. That Gilead can’t justify the price of its hepatitis C therapy – Sovaldi, was highlighted in an article with a similar title, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 17, 2014.

It is worth mentioning that Sovaldi costs around USD 67,000 for a course of therapy, in Germany. Whereas, it costs round USD 55,000 in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). Gilead has accepted an altogether different pricing strategy for Sovaldi in some other countries, such as India and Egypt.

When the above concept is used to explain Sovaldi pricing:

The above Forbes paper explained its pricing by saying: “Add in other therapies that supplement Sovaldi, and now you’re talking about USD 100,000 or so to treat a single patient. To use Sovaldi to treat each of the 3 million hepatitis C patients in the United States, it would cost around USD 300 billion, or about the same amount we annually spend for all other drugs combined.”

Let me now put a couple of important numbers together to get a sense of the overall pricing scenario of a new drug. The New York Times (NYT) reported on February 03, 2015: “Gilead Sciences sold USD 10.3 billion of its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi in 2014, a figure that brought it close to being the best-selling drug in the world in only its first year on the market.”

Against its just the first-year sale, let me put the cost of acquisition of Sovaldi at USD 11.2 billion, an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale as calculated in the Forbes articleand the cost to manufacture a pill of Sovaldi at around USD 130. This reinforces the point, beyond any doubt how ‘outrageous’ its pricing is.Even Gilead’s CEO admitted to failures in setting price of Sovaldi at USD 1,000-A-Pill, said another article on the subject. More important is, the costs to Gilead for Sovaldi acquisition and launch were virtually recovered in just a little over a year, but Sovaldi’s original price tag remains unaltered.

Is the Big Pharma talking differently now?

It appears that some constituents of Big Pharma have now started talking differently in this regard, publicly – at least, in letters, if not in both letter and spirit. Be that as it may, one will possibly be too naïve to accept such sporadic signals coming from pharma, as a shift in their fundamental thought pattern on drug innovation as a profit booster. Being highly optimistic in this area, I would rather say that these are early days to conclude that Big Pharma has really accepted the reality that – drug innovation is only meaningful, if it reaches those patients who need them the most.

Changing…not changing…or early days?

Let me explain this point with examples of changing…not changing…orearly days.

Changing?

On July 24, 2018 during an interview to Pharm Exec the head of the sub-Saharan African region for Roche made some key points, such as:

Groundbreaking innovation in medical science is only meaningful, if it reaches the patients who need it.

Access to healthcare is a multidimensional challenge and key to addressing the barriers, is really understanding them

Need to create a new business model that can sustainably – and this is very important – create access for patients.

Not changing?

When one Big Pharma constituent is showing some change in its approach on the purpose of innovation, another constituent is trying to make the entry of cheaper biosimilar drugs even tougher. This creates yet another doubt – both on safety and efficacy of biosimilars, as compared to much higher priced off-patent original biologic drugs.In August 2018, Pfizer reportedly called for US-FDA guidance on ‘false or misleading information’ about biosimilars, citing some of the following examples from other Big Pharma constituents, such as:

Genentech’s “Examine Biosimilars” website, which states that “the FDA requires a biosimilar to be highly similar, but not identical to the existing biologic medicine.” Pfizer argues that Genentech’s omission of the fact that an approved biosimilar must have no clinically meaningful differences from its reference product is a failure to properly communicate the definition of a biosimilar.

Janssen Biotech’s patient brochure for brand-name Remicade, which states that a biosimilar works “in a similar way” to a biosimilar without clarifying that the biosimilar must have the same mechanism of action as the originator. Pfizer also takes issue with the brochure’s suggestion that no infliximab biosimilar has been proven to be safe or effective in a switching study.

Amgen’s April 13, 2018, tweet that states that patients may react differently to biosimilars than to reference products. Pfizer also points out an Amgen YouTube video that implies that switching to a biosimilar is unsafe for patients who are well controlled on a current therapy.

Interestingly, on July 20, 2018 Pfizer announced that the US-FDA has approved Nivestym (filgrastim-aafi), a biosimilar to Neupogen (filgrastim) of Amgen, for all eligible indications of the reference product. This is the fourth US-FDA approved Pfizer biosimilar drug, the marketing and sales promotion of which expectedly, I reckon, will be no different from other biosimilars.

Early days?

Yes, it appears so. These are early days to draw any definitive conclusion on the subject.

Conclusion:

W.H.O observed in its above report that the ‘overall situation is somewhat improving’. It was also corroborated in the ‘2016 Access to Medicines Index’, which gave high marks to those companies that negotiated licenses for antiretrovirals and hepatitis C medicines through the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). MPP was set up in 2010 as a public health organization supported by the United Nations to improve access to HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis treatments in low- and middle- income countries.

It could well be, on the purpose of drug innovation some new realization has dawned, at least, on some few global pharma majors. However, it is still difficult to fathom its depth, at this point of time. There is no conclusive signal to believe that the Big Pharma is now thinking differently on the subject, not just yet.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Making Drug Pricing Transparent May Work Better Than Price Control

Posted on July 23, 2018 by Tapan Ray

“Now, one-fourth of the Indian pharma market to be under price control.” This possibility was reported by some national dailies, on July 03, 2018. The new methodology of drug price control could be anything – ranging from earlier ‘cost-based’ model to the current ‘market-based’ one – to even the new pharmaceutical index, as proposed by the Government ‘think tank’ – Niti Aayog. This gives an indication of acceptance by the policy makers that none of the price control mechanisms have worked as intended, till the last 48 years. Otherwise, why are such changes taking place?

On the other hand, the drug pricing models of the pharma industry, are also not working. Drug pricing related issues, directly or indirectly, continue driving pharma reputation down south. Strong negative vibes on the industry continues, despite a vigorous and expensive advocacy of the industry trade associations, primarily positioning the need to encourage ‘drug innovation’ right at the front. No perceptible impact of this pharma strategy on the policy makers is still visible, besides a few spoon-fed media editorials – as many believe. The saga continues. The pricing focus keeps remaining solely on a company’s financial interest. How far the price of a drug can be stretched to benefit the company, is the point to ponder. Why aren’t the basis and rationale of drug pricing made transparent, voluntarily? In this article, I shall discuss on this contentious issue.

Current pricing approach becoming counterproductive:

The good news is, of late, some global drug majors apparently have been compelled to realize that this approach is gradually becoming more and more counterproductive, inviting more drastic measures from many Governments. Even recently in the United states, ‘Trump wants U.S. Health Secretary to get tough on drug prices, opioids.’ This situation demands, more than ever before, that a measurable quantum of all-round health benefits accrued by patients with the medicine, have to be factored into the drug pricing model, now.

Can pharma too, look for an ‘Out of the box’ solution?

I found two excellent examples of ‘looking outside the box’ in an article featured in the Pharmaceutical Executive, on March 06, 2018. Both the illustrations from non-pharma companies focus on product output to the consumer rather than inputs on the same by the companies, such as the cost of a drug innovation to an innovative company. Many find difficult to accept – why for extending life of cancer patients by just three to six months, an innovative oncology drug would cost thousands of rupees more to the sufferers, or their family?

Couple of interesting ideas:

The two interesting ideas are as follows:

- Erstwhile Monsanto, the article says, ‘had historically been able to maintain its market position and technological edge in developing superior genetically modified seeds through patents and contracts with farmers. In order to fully capture the value of its genetically modified seeds, however, Monsanto went a step further and shifted to a royalty type price model, charging a fee after the crops were harvested based on the yield. This end-use fee shifted Monsanto’s price model from seed-based to yield-based pricing, i.e., from input- to output based.”

- The second one comes from a time “when Michelin developed a new tire that lasted 25 percent longer than existing tires, the company found it difficult for customers to accept a premium” – the paper highlights. “Rather than giving away the innovation, Michelin changed its pricing model. Truck fleets, a key customer segment, track cost per mile for each truck as their revenue model is also based on charging its customers per mile. Michelin decided to adapt its pricing model and to offer the new tires on a price per mile rather than per tire basis. The company then offered a contract to replace the tires after they wore down. Under this new pricing model, customers perceived a parity price as they were not asked to pay more, while longer lasting tire from Michelin was able to capture a premium for its innovation” – the article emphasized.

Two patient-oriented pharma pricing models:

Looking somewhat ‘outside the box’ and trying to factor in patients’ overall interest, some global majors are contemplating the following two broad approaches:

Value based pricing (VBP)
Outcomes based pricing (OBP)

The Drug Pricing Lab (DPL) based at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center defines these two models as follows:

Value-based pricing: When the price of a drug is based on its measured benefits, for instance, in clinical trials leading to its approval. Methods used to determine value-based prices are transparent, reproducible and data driven.

Outcomes-based pricing: Refers to arrangements between manufacturers and payers, in which the manufacturer is obligated to issue a refund or rebate to the payer that is linked to how well the therapy performs in a real-world population. This refund or rebate is off of a list price that the manufacturer sets.

These concepts are neither very new or untried. Nevertheless, these are being used very selectively by some global pharma majors, from time to time. There doesn’t seem to be any consistent approach with these two models, thus far. For example, in 2005, with its erectile dysfunction drug Levitra (vardenafil), Bayer entered into a “no cure, no pay” initiative in Denmark, where patients dissatisfied with the treatment get a refund. Moreover, there are several instances of interchangeable use of these two definitions, in various literature. But, I shall stick only to the above definition, in this deliberation.

Are there any takers for VBP?

A few other pharma majors, such as Eli Lilly, have accepted the need in finding a right balance between investment on innovation and providing affordable medicines, as the key to bettering the health of the world with value-based pricing. It will call for requisite engagement between the drug manufacturers and health planners, covering the following two points, especially in the Indian context:

Critical scientific evidence about new drugs would create a pathway to set accurate rates for better availability to patients who need treatment.
Making drug price regulators and health policy planners better anticipate the holistic impact of the drug on patients, leading to generation of more accurate efficacy and pricing/health economics data.

The major issue with VBP:

The critical point to note, that for a meaningful discussion on VBP, the pharma players will require to share their pricing data with the competent authorities. In this regard, the article, titled “Pricing Turning Point: The Case for Innovating Pharma’s Model,” published by Pharmaceutical Executive on March 06, 2018, flags an important reality.

It says,a drug pricing model consists of two parts – How to charge (the details of the rationale)? And how much to charge (the level)? The article reinforces that the pricing decisions in the pharma industry generally focus on ‘how much to charge’, for the last 100 years. This process is now being stretched to a mind boggling level that raises many eyebrows in ‘disbelief’. I, therefore, reckon, it would be a real challenge for the drug maker to make the basis or rationale of a pricing decision transparent to all. In that case, the moot question is, how would the value-based pricing work?

Are there any takers for OBP?

According to reports, the erstwhile CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, and his Amgen counterpart at that time – Robert Bradway, among others, publicly spoke about pegging drug costs to their outcomes. Intending to be a part of the drug pricing solution, Novartis inked performance-based contracts with Cigna and Aetna on its new heart failure medication Entresto, so did Amgen on its anti-lipid drug – Repatha. Novartis also fleshed out the details of outcomes-based pricing model in a comprehensive report, describing its benefits to address the affordability challenge. However, such initiatives have not gained momentum, just yet.

OBP may not be the right option, and why:

Thereafter,the Drug Pricing Lab (DPL), based at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center,analyzed that the methods manufacturers use to generate list prices are typically opaque, inconsistent, and driven more by market factors than clinical data. These methods are often referred to by manufacturers as “pricing to what the market will bear”.

‘The Drug Pricing Lab’ illustrated the basic difference to patients between the ‘value-based’ and ‘out-come’ based pricing models by looking into Amgen’s outcome-based refund contract with Harvard Pilgrim for Repatha (Evolocumab). Amgen had agreed to refund Harvard Pilgrim the cost of medication for patients who have a heart attack or stroke, an estimated 3.5 percent of individuals on the drug. This equates to a reduction in annual list price from US$ 14,100 to US$ 13,620. In contrast, the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’finds that a value-based price for Repatha would be US$ 2,200 to US$ 5,000 per year, one third to one fifth the expected price resulting from the outcomes-based contract.

VBP comes out as a better option:

Based on the available data, it appears that VBP is a better option that focuses on tangible value delivery of a drug to individual patients. This is quantified with the help of available statistical tools, in a transparent manner. Application of Health economics is also being tried in this area.

Thus, the core concept behind VBP is that any drug price should be a function of the differential value that it delivers over the conventional ones, generally used for treating the same disease. Unfortunately, arriving at a consensus on the ‘value assessment’ metrics for a drug, often throws a tough challenge, especially to the manufacturers.

Conclusion:

Recently, with exorbitantly high-priced new drugs coming into the market, the issue of drug pricing mechanism has become a major concern for all stakeholders. Pharma companies can’t wish it away, any longer, even with the high decibel advocacy of ‘protecting and encouraging innovation’ of new drugs. The consequent potential risks are becoming too costly.

This situation prompts the pharma players to reengage with the consumers, providing quantifiable details about the differential value that a drug offers to patients and its relationship to the price that the company charges. This is easier said than done. It’s time for drug companies to establish a solid link between these two. As I said before, many stakeholders are refusing to accept, just to extend life for a few months, why should an innovative anti-cancer drug cost thousand or even lakhs of rupees more than a conventional one – pushing families into dire financial distress?

Pharma players can’t afford to remain a part of this critical problem, any longer. They should take responsibility to become a part of the solution. With VBP or with any other credible alternatives, making drug pricing transparent – voluntarily, may work better for them than facing mandatory price control. It’s a different ball game altogether, requiring a new mindset, and… the name of the game is: ‘out of the box’ Ideas.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drug Pricing Pressure to Escalate Further?

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Tapan Ray

On February 09, 2018, NITI Aayog released its “Healthy States, Progressive India” Report. The study ranked the States based on ‘health index’. Kerala, Punjab and Tamil Nadu featured as top three in terms of overall performance in 2015-16. However, the interstate variation of ‘health indices’ was quite significant, with the highest being 76.55 (Kerala) and the lowest in Uttar Pradesh with 33.69, during the same period.

Importantly, the report also noted: “About one-third of the States have registered a decline in their performance in 2016 as compared to 2015, stressing the need to pursue domain-specific, targeted interventions.” It’s worth noting, the reported decline in performance was registered despite several promises of the Government in this space, during immediately preceding years.

Apparently, as a corrective measure to this effect, the world’s largest government-funded health care program – the ‘National Health Protection Scheme (HPS)’ of India was announced in the Union Budget Proposal, on February 01, 2018. HPS is expected to provide insurance cover of up to ₹500,000 to 100 million poor and vulnerable families, covering around 500 million population in the country.

As enshrined in the National Health Policy 2017 (NHP 2017), HPS too seeks to ensure improved access and affordability of quality secondary and tertiary care services with a significant reduction in Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) on health care, for the common citizens in the country.

Such a massive public health care program as HPS, is obviously expected to use a transparent drug procurement and logistics framework. This, in turn, would necessitate tough price negotiations with the pharma manufacturers for the purchase of medicines, leading to significant reduction in drug prices. This is already happening in some States, like Tamil Nadu.

High OOPE on health:

According to the December 2016 report of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, of the total 64.2 percent OOPE in 2013-14, 53.46 percent was spent on medicines and 9.95 percent was spent on diagnostics, in India. 82.29 percent of the total OOP medicines expenditure and 67 percent of total OOP diagnostic expenditure was for outpatient treatment. Of the total OOPE, 15.96 percent was on traditional medicines/ AYUSH, of which equal proportion was spent on outpatient and inpatient care.

In an interview, published on December 18, 2017, the Chairman of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), reportedly, also said, OOPE makes up about 62 percent of all health care costs in India, causing impoverishment of many patients. In a comparative yardstick, OOPE is about 20 percent in the U.S. and the U.K. and 20-25 percent in BRICS countries. Thus, there is a need to significantly bring it down in India, he said.

Curiously, the ‘Health in India’ report, which draws data from the 71st round of the National Sample Survey conducted from January to June 2014, presents a somewhat different picture. It reportedly says, of the total OOPE, 72 percent in rural and 68 percent in urban areas was towards buying medicines for non-hospitalized treatment. The Health in India report shows, in rural India, 25 percent patients relied on “borrowings” for hospitalization, and 68 percent on household income and other savings. In urban India, 18 percent patients had to borrow while admitted in hospital, and 75 percent relied on income or savings – the report further added.

Containing OOPE – a dire necessity:

Be that as it may, OOPE for health in India and, especially, on drugs, is indeed very high, by any measure. To contain this burden on the general population in the private market, the Government had introduced, since quite some time, a balancing mechanism through various Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO).

Similarly, to contain its own health care expenditure, as HPS comes into force, the Government is expected to choose a digitalized and transparent drug procurement process. This would, almost certainly, prompt tough price negotiations for the purchase of medicines, as well.

Thus, HPS may further add to the current discomfort of the pharma players in this area, as they mostly want free pricing of drugs that will only be regulated by market forces. Unfortunately, market forces do not work for drugs. I explained it in an article, published in this blog on April 27, 2015, titled “Does Free Market Economy Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”

Industry lobbying for free pricing of drugs and devices:

It is well known that pharma industry, supported by other businesses dependent on it, including a section of the media, is still against such a move by the Indian policy makers, for various reasons. The primary one being, such pressure on drug prices would stifle innovation, impacting patient access to the best possible health care.

Pharma Multination Corporations (MNC) appear to be in the forefront of this ‘innovation’ bandwagon to score a brownie point in this area, as many say. This is an ongoing process for them. Even recently, in the report titled, ‘2017 Accomplishments’, the US-India Business Council’s (USIBC) made a strong assertion in this regard, quite expectedly, though.

The report articulated, as part of advocacy around price controls, USIBC had sent a letter to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), detailing American industry concerns on setting up ceiling prices for drugs and medical devices. USIBC, reportedly has also sent a letter, expressing its concern on the “serious problems for US companies that sell these products in the Indian market.” Advocacy initiatives of this kind, reportedly included the then Foreign Secretary, Minister of Commerce and Industries of India, and the Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary, as well.

Pricing pressure getting more intense, even in the US:

Curiously, a similar and equally interesting scenario is rapidly developing alongside in the largest pharma free-market economy in the world – the United States. On January 30, 2018, during his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump said that he wants his administration “to make fixing the injustice of high drug prices one of our top priorities.”

Likewise, as reported by Bloomberg on February 09, 2018, President Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary – Alex Azar reaffirmed that he plans to take up the President’s promises to do something about pharmaceutical prices to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket spending. He assured, “The president is firmly committed in this space.” Incidentally, Alex Azar is a former executive at drug maker Eli Lilly & Co.

HPS needs efficient public procurement and logistics mechanisms:

As the cost of drugs and devices contribute so much to the total OOPE on health, together with ensuring patients’ easy access to convenient to reach primary, secondary and tertiary health care facilities – access to drugs, devices and diagnostics for the target population of HPS must also increase, effectively. Thus, bulk procurement and distribution of these, free of cost, at the designated health centers, assumes paramount importance for its success. Consequently, the trust of the HPS beneficiaries will keep ascending.

The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) too, had aptly asserted, any inefficiency due to poor governance, lack of transparency and inequities in public health financing and delivery would greatly impede access to medicines and diagnostics for those who would need these most.

Admitting its importance, the NHP 2017 noted: “Quality of public procurement and logistics is a major challenge in ensuring access to free drugs and diagnostics through public facilities. An essential prerequisite that is needed to address the challenge of providing free drugs through the public sector, is a well-developed public procurement system.”

Thus, putting in place an effective framework and process for this purpose, at both the central and the state government levels, as the situation would warrant, requires to be a key priority focus area of the HPS implementation process. There doesn’t seem to be any other viable choice, either.

Any need to ‘reinvent the wheel’?

The answer is, of course, ‘no’. Perhaps, to attain similar goals, the Government had established the fully autonomous Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) as a Central Procurement Agency (CPA). This was intended to streamline drug procurement and distribution system of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of India. Accordingly, the Gazette Notification on the formation of CMSS said that it:

Will be responsible for procuring health sector goods in a transparent and cost-effective manner and distributing them to the States/UTs by setting up an IT enabled supply chain infrastructure including warehouses in 50 locations.
Will ensure uninterrupted supply of health-sector goods to the State Government, which will then maintain the flow to the government health facilities, such as district hospitals, primary health centers and community health centers.
All decisions on procurement will be taken by the CMSS without any reference to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
The Ministry will be responsible only for policy decisions concerning procurement and for monitoring its performance.
The CMSS will also assist the State Governments to set up similar organizations in states to reform their procurement.

Currently, CMSS carries out procurement for following ‘Disease Control and Welfare Programs’ of the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare:

Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program (RNTCP)
National Vector Borne Disease Control Program (NVBDCP)
Family Welfare Program (FWP)
National Aids Control Organization (NACO)

The scope of services of CMSS includes tendering, bid Evaluation, procurement decision, concluding rate agreement, placing purchase orders, receiving in stores, sampling and testing, releasing payment to suppliers and keeping stocks of drugs available in warehouses for distribution to state program offices.

So far as State Governments are concerned, a World Bank article says, the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation (TNMSC) had successfully demonstrated a cost-effective model. This IT enabled system is an integral part in the supply chain infrastructure to support the management decisions, and adequate attention to quality in drug procurement.

CMSS follows similar processes to procure and distribute supplies to States through web-connected warehouses in State capitals. An IT vendor takes up the IT work with a quality control framework in place. Its warehouses are being equipped with necessary storing and warehousing equipment, which will distribute to the States the items that are procured by the Ministry. Since the warehouses will be connected through the IT system, it will be possible for the Society to monitor the inventory in warehouses preventing stock outs and wastage.

Many State governments have also adopted a similar reform process. However, any duplication in the drug procurement and logistics systems needs to be avoided.

Conclusion:

Hence, I reckon, CMSS can be extended to the procurement process of both the new ‘Health Protection Scheme (HPS)’ and also for the ‘Health and Wellness Centers,’ without trying to ‘reinventing the wheel.’

As stated before, this seemingly transparent drug procurement process for public use, would naturally involve tough price negotiations, leading to significant reduction, not just in drug prices, but also containing the overall HPS cost to the Government, enabling the country to experience the roll out of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for all. From this perspective, it appears, while translating into reality, this noble Government intent of providing wider access to health care, including free medicines, overall pressure on drug prices may escalate further.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

The Relevance of Content Marketing In Pharma

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Tapan Ray

“Nearly half of pharma industry may come under price control” – was the headline of a media report of June 7, 2017. Although, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has apparently denied any such move, the fact is that the number of drugs coming under price control is steadily creeping up, ever since the Drugs Price Control Order 2013 came into force. If this trend continues, the gross profit margin of most of the branded generic manufacturers will also keep getting significantly squeezed, with a varying degree, though.

Coupled with drug pricing pressure in the United States, USFDA import bans from several manufacturing plants in India and dwindling number of new generic drugs ready for US launch, the market capitalization of many publicly listed pharma companies, may go further south. An important example of this situation was cited by Bloomberg, with reasons, in its report of June 07, 2017 carrying a headline “Pharma Woes Axe $14 Billion From Wealth of Once-Richest Indian.”

However, the overall setting is not so distressing for all Indian drug manufacturers, for different reasons. The June 08, 2017 headline of another business news daily stating – “Cadila Healthcare overtakes Lupin as second most valuable pharma company in India,” vindicates the point. The promoter of this company reportedly said, ‘the company expects to receive 40 product approvals in the US in the current financial year.’

Be that as it may, added to these pain points of many pharma players in the country, Prime Minster Narendra Modi’s recent hint on framing rules for doctors to prescribe generic drugs, invites yet another wave of worries for the branded generic drugs players in India, regardless of a solid socioeconomic reason for the same.

Keeping these developments in perspective, collectively, the headwind faced by the Indian pharma industry, regardless of the underlying reasons, is indeed a tough one to navigate through, unscathed. Consequently, the stellar aggregate net profit growth of 41.3 percent in 2016 over 2015, as reported by the 2016 Dun & Bradstreet publication titled, “India’s Leading Pharmaceutical Companies 2016”, could possibly be rather challenging to maintain. Let me hasten to add that a much slower rise in the sector’s largest expense head – ‘raw material expenses’, also helped to achieve this enviable profit growth in 2016, as the report elaborated.

In this article, I shall try to fathom the depth this issue, and the possible way forward.

Areas of laudable contribution by the pharma industry:

For several decades, the pharmaceutical industry has been playing a leading role, not just in offering new innovative drugs, but their cheaper generic equivalents also, as those go off-patent, incessantly, to save and improve the quality millions of lives, across the world. The success of the drug industry is fundamentally driven by innovation – both in the discovery of new molecules and treatments, as well as in coming out with new cost efficient processes to significantly improve patients’ access to innovative drugs, post patent expiry.

Two areas requiring greater focus:

In tandem with these laudable initiatives, two disturbing trends are gathering momentum. One such trend is inadequate understanding of the grave fall out of not meeting with important stakeholders’ expectation on product pricing. As a result, various Governments and other health care payers are coming down heavily on pharma players to make drug prices affordable for the patients.

And the second one is, an intriguing apathy to be innovative in engaging with each stakeholder to take them on board. This can be done by communicating transparently, an easy-to-understand way and a customized way, the major benefits the individual players have been providing to facilitate various public health care initiatives. An apparent disinterest in this area continues, despite the snowballing effect of adverse public perception, and increasing trust deficit.

The core factors driving the trends:

These two trends are generally driven by two core factors – one is external, and the other internal. The external one is related to the general socioeconomic environment, and the internal one is intimately related to strategic business game plans of individual pharma companies.

The discussion will get more complex, if one wants to know whether the traditional pharma business models have a catalytic effect on the seemingly hostile business environment. As I have discussed several times in this blog, what the pharma players can possibly do in the pricing area, I shall not go into that subject yet again.

Nevertheless, what the pharma companies can do in the second area, to achieve their key strategic business goals, is quite different from what most of them are doing or not doing, till date. As we see around, many pharma players, especially the Indian branded generic companies remain engaged predominantly with the doctors, in the form of product detailing, or through Continuing Medical Education (CME) events, or the likes of these.

Today’s newer kind of strategic intervention calls for expert inputs. This is essential to create credible-research-based innovative content, and deliver the same with absolute precision through tailor-made platforms, for effective engagement with each stakeholder. It goes without saying, this should be done in a way that ordinary citizens or netizens can easily relate to.

Relevance of ‘Content Marketing’:

As the traditional pharma marketing is becoming progressively less and less effective, the need for a comprehensive content marketing model is becoming critical for the Indian pharma industry, more than ever before. In this model, useful content will be at the core of pharma marketing

According to the Content Marketing Institute (CMI): ‘Content Marketing is a strategic marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent content to attract and retain a clearly defined audience – and, ultimately, to drive profitable customer action.’

It is possible to make the demand of a medical product, or a caring corporate image, more sustainable through content marketing, as compared to the traditional ones where individual product detailing and CMEs become the centerpieces of marketing strategy.

Why is it so important for pharma now?

According to a Pew Research Study, “One in three American adults have gone online to figure out a medical condition.”

Similarly, PwC Health Research Institute’s consumer survey of 1,060 US adults highlights, about one-third of consumers are using the social space as a natural habitat for discussions on health. More than 80 percent of individuals aged between18 and 24 would likely to share health-related information through social media, while nearly 90 percent of individuals would engage in health-related activities, or trust information found via social media. Around 45 percent of consumers said information from social media would affect their decisions to seek a second opinion.

In India too, increasing number of doctors and patient populations are ferreting information that they require from cyberspace, including different expert websites, online, and immediately when they require those.

Doctors are searching for detail information on different drugs, about their manufacturers, new treatment processes, and required data on clinical trials. Similarly, patients are searching for information in various other areas, such as, different aspects of the diseases that they or their near or dear ones are suffering from, and their effective modes of treatment with cost data, by getting connected online with related patient groups or communities. Even when engaging with the doctors, they often want to cross verify the outcome of discussion with the information available on the Internet. So do the doctors with the information provided by the pharma companies in person.

For example, one such popular website, among many others, is The Mayo Clinic’s Sharing blog designed for the Mayo Clinic community, and includes the following area:

Sharing experience of patient communities
Specialist doctors discussing new treatments, contemporary innovation in the health care space and patient care
Medical researchers and specialist doctors sharing their research experiences
Discussion on future health care and wellness by the professionals at Mayo Clinic
Students sharing their experience and perspectives in various areas

Driven by the current digital wave, and the word of mouth publicity to the benefits derived by the doctors and patients through such process, an ever-increasing number of the population is expected to do the same, in the years ahead.

Thus, a huge marketing opportunity in this much unexplored area awaits the Indian pharma players to establish an emotional connect with the stakeholders, including the doctors and patients, by providing all relevant information that they are web-searching for.

Needs specialization:

Unlike traditional pharma marketing, content marketing is a highly-specialized area – especially for the generation of requisite meaningful and quality data, getting the relevant insight through analytics for innovative message creation.

Moreover, as the current public image of pharma players, in general, is not very encouraging, it may be a good idea to work on various trust building activities. These may include videos on patients narrating their stories or a research experience, and infographics. Thereafter, its delivery through best suited communication platforms, across the marketing channels, followed by constant evaluation of the quality impact generated, will be critical.

Content marketing initiative in pharma should ideally start on a pilot scale and curated to enhance stakeholder engagement level, as necessary, before scaling it up to a national or a global level, as the situation would call for.

A few examples:

Some global pharma players have initiated great work in the space of content marketing. These are aimed at mostly to increase the awareness level and educate patients, doctors, and caregivers in some important and carefully crafted areas. A few examples are as follows:

Actually She Can (Allergan): on contraception options
Set Your Sights (Novartis): on vision conditions that a person may not have been previously aware of
Living Like You (Novartis): on coping with Multiple Sclerosis at its different stages
Arthritis.com (Pfizer): provides information about rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis
Quitter’s Circle (Pfizer and American Lung Association): provides resource for those who want to quit smoking and their supporters.

Conclusion:

The most predictable part in the pharma business environment is its unpredictability. What is happening today with various large and seemingly invincible players of the recent past, is indeed jaw dropping. Some experts had predicted that the ultimate outcome of getting fixated into mostly traditional business practices in a rapidly changing socioeconomic setting and technology focused environment, could seriously challenge the long-term sustainability of a business.

The major adverse impact on the Indian pharma sector’s overall business performance is primarily driven primarily by the product pricing pressure and USFDA import bans on product quality parameters. Many believe, both these are intimately related to the current business practices of the industry, in general, leading to increasing trust deficits between the pharma companies and the Government, including the public.

The growth engine of the pharma industry is innovation, which would always remain so. Interestingly, in marketing areas no much innovation is noticed. Continuous and effective engagement with all stakeholders is critical now, not just for brand promotion, but also on corporate mission, vision and values, giving solid examples of how the company is making steady progress in those areas. This would help establish credibility in their eyes and take them on board to create a powerful and trustworthy voice for effective brand engagements, as well. It will also encourage the pharma players to ‘walk the talk’, in the real world, always.

The opportunities that a comprehensive content marketing strategy could offer to pharma companies to move in this direction, are phenomenal. It helps to get emotionally connected with all stakeholders, by providing relevant information, including those they are web-searching for, in a more innovative and informative format.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis

Posted on December 12, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Many poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life savings for treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as, cancer, have been virtually priced out of the access to patented new drugs, across the world. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, prices of these medicines are increasingly getting disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of these products.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, as there is not even a remote possibility of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

There is no recent worthwhile Government action either, to give shape to its an important decision on this issue, in a meaningful way. That critical decision was also scripted in Para 4.XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012), and was notified on December 07, 2012. On ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’, it categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

Just a couple of months after, on February 21, 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) in a communication to the stakeholders announced that the committee to examine the issues of ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Drugs’ has since submitted its report to the Department. Simultaneously the stakeholders were requested to provide comments on the same urgently, latest by March 31, 2013.

Following this long overdue report, lack of any worthwhile action, both by the previous and the current Governments, possibly coming under a strong pressure of the self-serving interests of the constituents of ‘Big Pharma’ and their trade associations, is indeed glaring. I shall dwell on that in this article.

A brief recapitulation:

As stated earlier, almost a decade ago, an expert committee was constituted by the Government to suggest a system that could be used for price negotiation of patented medicines and medical devices ‘before their marketing approval in India’.

This committee reportedly had 20 meetings in two rounds, where the viewpoints of the pharmaceutical industry, including large multi-industry trade bodies like – FICCI, various NGOs and other stakeholders were taken into consideration. Simultaneously, it had commissioned a study of the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur to ascertain various mechanisms of price control of patented drugs in many countries, across the world, for independent research based inputs for this report.

Salient features of the report:

The salient features of this expert committee report were as follows:

Scope of recommendations:

The Committee in its final report recommends price negotiations for Patented Drugs only towards:

The Government procurement/reimbursement
Health Insurance Coverage by Insurance Companies

Issues to remain unresolved despite price negotiation:

In the report, the Committee expressed the following view:

Even after calibrating the prices based on Gross National Income with Purchasing Power Parity of the countries, where there are robust public health policies with the governments having strong bargaining power in price negotiation, the prices of patented medicines will remain unaffordable to a very large section of the population of India. Such countries were identified in the report as UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand.

Thus, the government should extend Health Insurance Scheme, covering all prescription medicines, to all those citizens of the country who are not benefitting under any other insurance/reimbursement plan.

Three categories of Patented Drugs identified:

The committee identified three categories of patented drugs, as follows:

A totally new class of drug with no therapeutic equivalence
A drug that has therapeutic equivalence, but also has a therapeutic edge over the existing ones
A drug that has similar therapeutic effectiveness compared to the existing one

It recommended that these three categories of Patented Drugs would require to be treated differently while fixing the price.

The Apex body for ‘Patented Drugs Price Negotiation’:

The Report recommends a committee named as ‘Pricing Committee for Patented Drugs (PCPD)’ headed by the Chairman of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to negotiate all prices of patented medicines.

As CGHS, Railways, Defense Services and other Public/Private institutions cover around 23 percent of total healthcare expenditure, the members of the committee could be invited from the Railways, DGHS, DCGI, Ministry of Finance and Representatives of top 5 health insurance companies in terms of the number of beneficiaries.

Recommended pricing methodology:

For ‘Price Negotiation of Patented Drugs’, the report recommends following methodologies for each of the three categories, as mentioned earlier:

1. For Medicines having no therapeutic equivalence in India:

The innovator company will submit to the PCPD the details of Government procurement prices in the UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand for the respective Patented Drugs.

In the event of the concerned company not launching the said Patented Drug in any of those reference countries, the company will require to furnish the same details only for those countries where the product has been launched.

The PCPD will then take into consideration the ratio of the per capita income of a particular country to the per capita income of India.

The prices of the Patented Drug would be worked out in India by dividing the price of the medicine in a particular country by this ratio and the lowest of these prices would be taken for negotiation for further price reduction.

The same methodology would be applicable to medical devices also and all the patented medicines introduced in India after 2005.

2. For medicines having a therapeutic equivalent in India:

If a therapeutically equivalent medicine exists for the Patented Drug, with better or similar efficacy, PCPD may consider the treatment cost for the disease using the new drug and fix the Patented Drug price accordingly.

PCPD may adopt the methodology of reference pricing as stated above to ensure that the cost of treatment of the Patented Drug does not increase as compared to the cost of treatment with existing equivalent medicine.

3. For medicines introduced first time in India itself:

PCPD will fix the price of such drugs, which are new in the class and no therapeutic equivalence is available, by taking various factors into consideration like cost involved, risk factors and any other factors of relevance.

PCPD may discuss various input costs with the manufacturer asking for documenting evidence.

This process may be complex. However, the report indicates, since the number of medicines discovered and developed in India will not be many, the number of such cases would also be limited.

Negotiated prices will be subject to revision:

The report clearly indicates that ‘the prices of Patented drugs so fixed will be subjected to revision either periodically or if felt necessary by the manufacturer or the regulator as the case may be.’

Support from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry:

Pharma MNCs reportedly said that ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Products’ should be made only for Government purchases and not be linked with ‘Regulatory Approval’. They also expressed their serious concern on the methodology of ‘Patented Products Pricing’. Nevertheless, from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, such as, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), Indian Drug Manufacturer Association (IDMA), Pharmexcil, Federation of Pharma Entrepreneurs (FOPE) and Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (CIPI), there emerged strong voices of support for this Government initiative

DIPP expressed apprehensions:

Interestingly, though the DoP had proposed in the report that once the Patented Drug Policy is implemented the issuance of CL may be done away with, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly commented with grave caution, as below:

“If it is decided that Price Negotiations on Patented Drugs should be carried out, then the following issues must be ensured:

Negotiations should be carried out with caution, as the case for Compulsory License on the ground of unaffordable pricing of drugs [Section 84(b) of the Patent Act] will get diluted.

Re-Negotiations of the prices at periodic intervals should be an integral part of the negotiation process.”

The status today:

The bottom-line is, a decision on the pricing policy for patented drugs is still pending with the Government, since a decade.

Post February 2013 report, without assigning any specific reasons, the whole process, intriguingly, came back to the square one. On February 2014, the DoP reportedly again decided to constitute another inter-ministerial committee to consider the subject, and recommend the pathway for its implementation in India. Nothing tangible has happened, since the first experts’ committee submitted its report, six years after it was formed, to address this critical patient-centric issue of the country. Effective governance remains a key issue in the health care space of India, even today.

The chronicle continues. On August 23, 2016, ‘The Indian Express’ reported that: “Gross negligence, lackadaisical attitude, vested interests, are some of the terms used in a report by the Parliamentary Committee on ‘Government Assurances’ on August 11, 2016, for the DoP on the latter’s inability to regulate the prices of patented medicines even after almost a decade of deliberation on this issue. While the NDA government has been in power since 2014, the second committee is yet to submit its report, it said.

However, in the end, the Parliamentary Committee reportedly said: “The Committee would like the ministry to take the proactive steps to expedite the proper follow action to finalize the requisite mechanism of patented drugs at the earliest and in the best interest of the country so that these medicines are made available to the common people at most affordable rates.” Let’s continue to wait and watch!

Conclusion:

I reckon, a robust mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ would also benefit the global pharmaceutical companies to put forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive innovative drugs in India. At the same time, the patients will have much greater access to patented drugs than what it is today, due to Government setting the purchase of these drugs at a negotiated price.

It’s about time for all those who are responsible for framing drug and health elated policies to introspect whether ‘policy paralysis’ is continuing, even today, in this area under intense pressure of vested interests. If not, the counter question that needs to be satisfactorily answered: While several secretaries have changed in the DoP since 2013, why is the policy on patented drug pricing, mooted by the Government a decade ago, not moved forward even an inch, to safeguard the patients’ health interest?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Pricing

How Creative Is Pharma Industry?

Innovative ‘Medicines Too Damn Expensive’: Health Risk For Billions of People

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Innovation: Is Big Pharma Talking Differently?

Making Drug Pricing Transparent May Work Better Than Price Control

Drug Pricing Pressure to Escalate Further?

The Relevance of Content Marketing In Pharma

Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis