Drugs & Devices: Chasing Never-Enough Profit And Price Control

Posted on July 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

On July 20, 2016, the Union Ministry of Health of India announced the addition of Coronary Stents to the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2015 with immediate effect, bringing them under the Drug Price Control Order.

Reacting sharply to this development, the medical device industry commented, with an undertone of threat, that this price cap could stop manufacturers from introducing technologically advanced stents in India.

However, without contributing to any further knee-jerk reaction, let me try to analyze in this article, whether the never-enough profit motive of the imported stent manufacturer prompted the Government to resort to price control for these life saving devices.

The use of stent:

In the treatment of coronary artery diseases, cardiac stents are now widely preferred in India, just as many other countries of the world. These are small expandable tubes, usually made of metal mesh, and are used to treat narrowed or weakened arteries in the body.

One of its most extensive usages is in patients with Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), caused by the buildup of plaque, where stents are used to open narrowed arteries and help reduce the symptoms, such as, chest pain or angina, or to help treat a heart attack. This procedure of a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is called angioplasty.

According to the report of an experts’ sub-committee formed by the Government in October 2015, around 25 percent of deaths in India is attributed to Cardio Vascular Disease (CVD). Coronary Artery disease (CAD) is the commonest CVD accounting for 90-95 percent of all CVD cases and related deaths.

However, for a large majority of the Indian population, the cost of angioplasty is prohibitively high. A patient may have to shell out anywhere between around Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 150,000 for a stent coated with drugs, called Drug Eluting Stent (DES), to curb restenosis, according to published reports.

Even for most Government staff, the cost of angioplasty could well be several times more than their maximum reimbursable limit fixed for angioplasty. Thus, only around 3 out of 1000 needy coronary heart disease patients are treated with angioplasty in India, as compared to 32 in the United States.

An opportunity to shape up:

Despite DES being notified as drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the coronary stents did not feature in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) prior to the above notification, and therefore, were not covered by the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO), so far.

For a long time, this situation offered an important opportunity to the imported stent manufacturers to shape up with responsible pricing…but did they?

Why is angioplasty cost so high?

While trying to find out a credible answer to the above question, the following details on DES of Abbott Healthcare are worth looking at. This information was sourced from a Maharashtra FDA report, and referenced by Rema Nagarajan in her article published in the Times of India on September 25, 2014 to highlight why is DES so expensive for patients in India.

Although, pricing details are of 2014, nevertheless, it gives a flavor of the prevailing situation:

Cost Break-Up/Unit	Cost per Unit (Rs.)
DES imported into India at	40,710
Sold to Distributor Sinocare at	73,440
Distributor Sold to Hinduja Hospital	1,10,000
Patient charged	1,20,000 (threefold increase of import price)

(Source: Maharashtra FDA report)

The saga of ‘Market driven pricing’:

Both the drug and the device companies apparently make valiant efforts to package such ‘arbitrary’ pricing as so called ‘Market Driven’ ones, though such price tags keep crippling many cardiac patients financially too. Ironically, the saga still continues.

Taking advantage of the free-pricing environment in India for Coronary Stents, to attain market dominance many global majors, possibly believe that they can print any Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on their import cost. It was happening even when the Government does not levy any customs duty on stents. Do these companies ignore its optics too? Who knows?

Like most drugs, market forces do not play any significant role in the medical device pricing too, globally.

In June 2013, a research study published in the ‘American Heart Journal (AHJ)’, compared the use of Bare-Metal Stents (BMS), Drug-Eluting Stents (DES), and Balloon Catheters according to company presence in the hospital. It concluded that Medical Representative (MR) presence was associated with increased use of the concerned company’s stents during percutaneous coronary interventions. The effect was more pronounced with the use of DES, and resulted in the higher procedural cost of US$ 250 per patient.

In this particular study, it was found that DESs were used in about 56 percent of the cases, when the MRs concerned were at the hospital, against 51 percent when they weren’t there.

The situation is not terribly different in India too, where also the medical choices are often influenced by the drugs and device makers through, much discussed, dubious means.

The market:

According to a market research report of ‘Future Market Insights (FMI)’ dated May 09, 2016, the coronary stent market of India was of US$ 481 million in 2015, and by the end of 2016 is expected to reach at US$ 531 growing at a CAGR of 14.0 percent over the forecast period of 2016 – 2026.

This study segmented the market on the basis of the following product types:

Drug Eluting Stent (DES)
Bare Metal Stent (BMS)
Bioresorbable stent (BVS)

DES segment is expected to exhibit the highest growth and the BMS segment a stable growth, during the forecast period. This is mainly attributed to the emergence of new and more effective stents in the market, the report highlights.

The market is dominated by the imported stents. Abbott, Medtronics, Meril Lifesciences and Boston Scientific, hold together around 60 percent share of the Indian market.

In India, nine of the 11 domestic stent manufacturers are located in Surat and Vapi of Gujarat. These stents are picking up the market share currently hovering around 30 percent, costing even less than half, as compared to the imported ones.

The Government stepped in:

When the industry did not seem to shape up, despite the regulatory opportunity available to keep the stents out of the NLEM, the media started writing about it, strongly and quite frequently. These were intended to bring some sanity into the imported and advanced Coronary Stent pricing system. Still nothing changed, and the Government had to step in.

Ultimately, in October 2015, the Union Ministry of Health constituted a sub-committee of expert cardiologists under the chairmanship of Prof. Y.K. Gupta, Head of the department of pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The mandate of this sub-committee was to examine the issues relating to the essentiality of coronary stents, and recommend whether the coronary stents should be included in the NLEM.

Accordingly, after a series of in-depth discussion with various stakeholders, which included stent manufacturers and the patient groups, the sub-committee recommended the inclusion of two categories of coronary stents, namely the DES and BMS in the NLEM. This suggestion was in response to “the enormous need of percutaneous coronary intervention, or angioplasty with stent.”

By a notification on July 20, 2016, the Ministry of Health announced that the sub-committee has submitted its report to the Government, and after thorough examination of the report, its recommendations have been accepted for implementation with immediate effect.

This decision of the Government is expected to set the stage for the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to work out ceiling prices, which are expected to be 40 percent to 70 percent less than the current prices for these stents.

Conclusion:

For the last several years, many stakeholders, including the media and the Government, have been expressing grave concern over the exorbitant prices of the Coronary Stents.

Earlier in 2015, following a petition, even the Delhi High Court directed the Government to monitor the prices of stents in the market.

Indian drug price regulator, the NPPA, and some state FDAs too flagged the point that although locally manufactured stents are much cheaper, doctors and hospitals continue to use the imported ones, for various commercial and other reasons. As a result, the situation remained the same, adversely affecting the health of a large number of cardiovascular patients in India.

The last week’s decision of the Indian Government for inclusion of coronary stents in the NLEM, needs to be viewed under the backdrop of steep increase in the incidence of CHD in India. It clearly poses a significant public health hazard, where the cost of stents becomes a key treatment barrier for the majority of the patients incurring out-of-pocket health expenditure.

Price control of drugs and devices may not be the best way to improve their access to the most of the Indian population. Nevertheless, considering the high out-of-pocket expenditure for health care in the country, instead of behaving responsibly, doesn’t the drug and the device makers’ mindless chase after ‘never-enough profit’ objectives, often prompt the imposition of regulatory price control?

The fact that many global drug and device manufacturers, even after posting over 30 percent standalone net profit growth in India, continue cribbing incessantly about the stifling Regulatory and Intellectual Property Right (IPR) environment in the country, vindicates the above point well, possibly beyond any reasonable doubt.

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.

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 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.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

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 Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Posted on May 30, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Should drug innovation models remain as expensive as what these are claimed to be now by the global pharma industry, in general?

Finding a credible, appropriately quantifiable, and generally acceptable answer to this question is critical. It won’t, then, just be a myth-buster for billions of dollar price tag, that is now being attached to drug innovation and development initiatives, by the global pharma industry, as a justification for arbitrarily fixing high new drug prices. If the upcoming and new startups with frugal models for even high-tech drug innovation succeed with flying colors, the patients and the payers would also possibly breathe a huge sigh of relief, from the increasing burden of disease and the cost of medicines.

I believe, it would eventually happen, may not be overnight, but over a period of time. I shall discuss in this article about some bright sparks, already visible in that direction.

The facade of high cost of drug innovation:

At the very outset, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, let me confess up front, just as many others, I also strongly believe that drug innovation is extremely important. It needs to be encouraged, protected and rewarded reasonably.

That said, let me also give the right perspective of how the cost of ‘drug innovation’ is being often misused as a facade for keeping the drug prices high, if not exorbitant.

According to a contentious study of ‘Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development’, the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014.

Despite these numbers being vehemently challenged in credible journals, many global pharma majors still keep justifying the high new drug prices on the same old pretext. As a diversionary tactic, they relentlessly argue that innovation has to be adequately rewarded to keep its wheels moving in perpetuity, though no one challenges this basic fact, not even remotely.

The moot questions:

The moot questions, therefore, are: how expensive is the drug innovation and how does the global drug industry establish its relationship with high new drug prices? The answers to these queries must be clear, specific, quantifiable and credible, and not ethereal, if not airy-fairy.

In this context, my article titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo in a globally reputed journal. An analysis published in the BMJ in May 2016 titled, “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

The above BMJ article also put forth similar questions: “What does it really cost to bring a new medicine to the market, and do these costs justify the high price?”

The authors pointed out that the pharmaceutical market is not actually a “free market” based on supply and demand with minimal government intervention through taxes, subsidies, or regulation. On the contrary, the pharma market is highly manipulated, and not focused on achieving the best prices, or even fair prices for essential and life saving medicines.

No linear link between high drug price and innovation cost:

As I discussed this subject in my previous article titled, “Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention”, it has been well established by now that there is no linear, or any relationship between high drug prices and cost of drug innovation. Since long, this argument is being misused just as a façade to keep the cost of medicines high, and making high profits even at the cost of lower sales volume.

The façade has started crumbling:

In India too, the pharma MNCs often use the same façade to keep the prices of also their branded generics much higher than the comparable formulations manufactured by larger domestic pharma manufacturers. However, the façade has started crumbling in many countries, across the world. This gradually increasing general realization is welcoming.

The Governments in many countries, have now started acting. They are increasingly forcing the drug makers to eye for volume growth, by reducing the fat margin, and improving patients’ access to high-priced drugs.

Just to draw an example, I would quote a very recent development in this area, outside India. On May 20, 2016, the Chinese health authorities announced price cuts of up to two-thirds to three patented drugs, in their latest move to reduce the cost of healthcare for patients. It is noteworthy that this happened in the world’s second-biggest economy, after the United States.

Why is arbitrary drug pricing continuing?

It appears, the only reason for the majority of the drug players to continue keeping the new drug prices high is because they can still make huge money through a small segment of patients who can afford their brands. What about the rest? This doesn’t seem to matter to them, at all, unless compelled to, in various ways.

Need to totally demolish the façade of innovation:

Thus, there is a compelling need is to demolish the façade of innovation, decisively, for keeping medicine prices high.

To move towards this direction, some flickers of a sound possibilities, are now visible in the horizon. The ‘Frugal’ or the ‘Silicon Valley’ type startups for high-tech drug innovation models, especially in the biotech sector, have shown high potential to be a game changer in this area.

Frugal innovation models for high-tech drugs:

The quest to find a pathway towards this direction continues. Recently, Professor Atul Butte, Director of the University of California Institute of Computational Health Sciences, highlighted that like other Silicon Valley startups, almost anyone can bring a drug to market from their garage with just a computer, the internet, and freely available data. Professor Butte, students, and research staff have already explored various methods and approaches of scientifically utilizing this data in search for new medicines.

As reported in the May 5, 2016 issue of ‘The Conversation’, Professor Butte outlined this process for an audience of local and international scientists and medics in a talk given at the Science on the Swan conference held in Perth in May 2016.

Professor Butte outlined several models of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for new biotech drugs or finding new indications for existing drugs.

A. The search for a new target:

There could be several approaches to the search of a new biotech drug. An example of one such, that Butte’s team is reportedly engaged in, is the construction of a map of how the genetic profiles of people with particular diseases are related to each other. The team looked for diseases with very similar genetic profiles.

Some may argue, this process of discovering other uses of drugs, conventionally termed as “drug repositioning”, is in the strictest sense is not exactly a novel one. They may attempt to establish it by drawing an example from Viagra, which was originally developed for treatment of cardiovascular conditions. However, the major difference is that Viagra’s repositioning for erectile dysfunction is an outcome triggered by its side-effects in patients taking the drug for its original cardiovascular disease treatment.

B. Desk research and discovery:

The primary desk research can start from the freely available enormous published genetic data, based on thousands of studies on humans, mice and other animals. The publications’ websites are also highly credible, such as, National Institute of Health and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Thus, as a result of abundantly available high quality genetic data, the cost of genetic sequencing, using gene chip technologies, is also coming down quite rapidly.

C. Animal testing:

After the potential drug discovery in the garage, there is a need to test the drugs on animals.

As Professor Butte suggests, this process also can be made much less expensive. For this purpose, he recommends the internet and the websites, such as, Assay Depot. This site is structured like Amazon, from which a researcher can order an experiment to be carried out to test a drug on a range of animal models, as the report states.

Butte finds this Internet based process very useful for ‘choosing the experiment type the researcher wants, adding it to a shopping cart, paying by credit card and getting the experimental results mailed back in a few weeks’ time.’ Such websites also offer wide choices to the researchers, even regarding the laboratory they would like to use, including the country where the laboratory is located.

D. Human Trial:

As ‘The Conversation’ article indicates, once a new use for a drug has been shown to work in an animal model, the next step would be to test the drug on human volunteers, get approval for the use of the drug for that condition, and then finally take the drug to market.

This purpose could involve spinning out startups with money from investors. In California, Professor Butte and his students have already followed this process after discovery of new uses for several drugs.

As Professor Butte epitomizes, none of this would be possible without sharing data. The ‘Frugal innovation’ models also highlight, how the growth of availability of open research data will be able to discover a range of uses, that would not have been foreseen, when the individual experiments were being carried out.

Would Big Pharma gobble up these startups?

If ‘Big Pharma’ starts gobbling up these startups paying exorbitant prices, the expectations of lower prices of novel drugs may possibly not come to fruition. Nevertheless, the facade of innovation for high drug prices would crumble. But, surely some other different and well-orchestrated pretext would surface, to maintain their stubbornness to continue with the same business model of very high margin and lesser volume sales, with cash register ringing, as ever.

Here is an example. ‘The Huffington Post’, in an article of May 10, 2016, reported on Big Pharma’s betting on a cancer drug startup.

The May 2016 article said, the pharmaceutical giant AbbVie acquired a startup named ‘Stemcentrx’ in a deal that values it at as high as US$10 billion.

The startup Stemcentrx has found out a unique approach, though somewhat controversial, for treating several forms of cancer. While most of today’s treatments view cancer as a result of unchecked cell growth, wherein any cell is capable of becoming cancerous, Stemcentrx believes that cancer primarily sprouts from only one cell type: cancer stem cells.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, hopefully, the evolving models of ‘Frugal innovation’, development and commercialization of high-tech drugs, are expected to be the game changer for quickly bringing a number of new drugs, or existing drugs for new indications to the market, for many disease conditions, at very affordable cost.

Big Pharma may not allow it happen so easily, just for vested interest, but the pressure group must keep a close vigil on this development, and more importantly, must prevail.

Thus, the next frontier of pharma research and development, would possibly shift to small startups of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for affordable high-tech drugs, extending their access to the majority of the patients, the world over.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention

Posted on May 23, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Arbitrary drug pricing has now become a subject of a raging debate, all over the globe. It involves both patented and generic drugs, as we have recently witnessed in the largest pharma market in the world – the United States.

In many countries the same issue is inviting the direct intervention of the Government to protect health interest of a vast majority of the populations. India, I reckon, belongs to this group of countries.

In this article, I shall discuss this issue, citing examples from both the global and local recent developments.

Most high drug price increases defy logic:

Published in March 2016, the ‘Express Scripts 2015 Drug Trend Report’ points out, in the perspective of the United States, that over the last 30 years more and more dollars are spent on specialty, rather than on traditional medications.

Most drug development and spend in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, used to be on traditional, mostly small-molecule oral solid drugs, used to treat conditions, such as, peptic ulcer, depression, hypertension and diabetes. Today, 37.7 percent of drug spends go for specialty medications, with the number expected to increase to 50 percent by 2018, and continue to grow further, thereafter.

The report also states that there are 7,000 potential drugs in development, with most aimed at treating the high-use categories of oncology, neurologic disorders and infectious diseases.

High-cost therapies for non-orphan conditions, particularly for cancer, high cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease, will continue to increase the population of patients with high annual drug expenditures.

‘Express Scripts Exclusive Prescription Price Index’ reveals a brand-price inflation in the United States, nearly doubled between 2011 and 2015, with the greatest impact seen in more recent years. Compared to 2014, brand prices in 2015 were 16 percent higher. Brand medications have increased in price by 164 percent between 2008 and 2015, the report highlighted.

Similar trend, though may not be of similar magnitude and proportion, has commenced in India too. In this emerging situation, the patients with high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on medicines have started feeling the pinch too. This is becoming more intense as the disease pattern has started shifting from short-term infectious and parasitic diseases to almost lifelong non-infectious chronic ailments.

The pressure started building up:

The drug industry is likely to come under increasing scrutiny on product pricing, to alleviate the ‘pressure cooker’ situation for the patients, in general, especially during chronic and life-threatening disease conditions.

May 10, 2016 issue of ‘Bloomberg’, in an article titled, “Mutual Fund Industry to Drug makers: Stand Up and Defend Yourself”, reported: “In a sign of how U.S. political pressure to rein in drug pricing is weighing on pharmaceutical companies and their investors, a group of major funds called an unusual meeting with top biotech and pharma lobbyists, urging them to do a better job defending their industry.” This is indeed unusual, and I reckon, should happen in India too.

The article also states: “Investors are stepping up pressure on pharma lobbyists at a critical time for the industry, as drug pricing has become a potent political issue on the presidential campaign trail and in Congress. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton sent biotech stocks tumbling last year when she first talked about ‘price gouging,’ and Donald Trump has suggested that Medicare should negotiate with manufacturers.”

It also reported that responding to this emerging pressure situation, the global pharmaceutical lobbying organizations, such as, PhRMA in the Washington, DC has already set up a dedicated webpage called “Costs in Context” with infographics and fact sheets. It has also tried to peg responsibility on insurance companies for making it hard for patients to access medicines.

Patients’ can no longer be taken for granted:

That patients’ can no longer be taken for granted with costly drugs, backed by high profile marketing campaigns, is evident from a recent study.

In May 2016, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, published a poll result on “Americans’ Attitudes About Changing Current Prescription Drug & Medical Device Regulation”.

Among many other related issues, the study reflected that around 57 percent of the poll participants believe that pharmaceutical companies should no longer be allowed to advertise prescription drugs on television. This is because of interesting reasons. The respondents believe that ads for prescription medicines sometimes encourage and persuade the patients to ask for costlier drugs that may not be appropriate for them.

In this context, it is worth recapitulating that on November 17, 2015 the American Medical Association (AMA) also called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices, including television advertisements.

According to a statement released by the group, “member physicians are concerned about a growing proliferation of ads driving demand for expensive treatments, despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives.”

Hence, the bottom-line is, even the American patients, most of whom are covered by health insurance of different kinds, are now feeling the bite of increasing medicine prices.

Many patients seem to be realizing that such unfair price increases, driven by the respective pharma manufacturers, are avoidable. This serious concern may assume a snowballing effect, notwithstanding high voltage lobbying and campaigns to negate these general stakeholders’ feelings by the top global pharma lobbying organizations, across the world, India included.

Premium pricing of MNCs’ branded generics arbitrary?

One gets its reflection even in the Indian branded generic market, where the MNCs usually market their generic single molecule or FDC brands at a huge premium price. Such high priced products are backed by intense marketing of all kinds. The MNCs’ justification of charging a high premium stand on the promise of adherence to world-class drug quality standards, unlike many domestic generic manufacturers.

There are not enough evidences either to accept or ignore this claim. However, it has received a big jolt even recently, raising similar suspicion as I briefly raised in my article titled, “Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View”, published in this blog on March 28, 2016.

On May 12, 2016 Reuters reported that Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India, in the notices posted on its website in February and also in April, has made it public that it has found some batches of Sanofi’s ‘Combiflam’ (FDC of paracetamol and ibuprofen) to be “not of standard quality”, as they failed disintegration tests.

According to the US-FDA, this particular test is used as an integral part of quality-assurance measure in pharmaceuticals, and its non-conformance makes the drug ‘sub-standard’.

Hence, huge premium charged for all those branded generics, which are outside DPCO, and mostly by the MNCs, may be construed by many as baseless and arbitrary.

Premium pricing, with payment to doctors is a winner?

This has again been vindicated in a recent study.

A paper, published in the May 09, 2016 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, establishes that: ‘Pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians may affect prescribing practices and increase costs, if more expensive medications are prescribed.’

Although no such credible study has been published in the Indian context, it is widely believed, the prevailing situation in this regard, within the country, is no different. Nevertheless, arbitrarily high drug pricing, even for the branded generics, is considered as a winning strategy by many pharma companies.

When the Government steps in:

It happened in India recently, yet again.

As we know, the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’ came under intense public criticism, as it did not include many modern drugs for chronic and lifesaving diseases under its fold, for inclusion in the drug price control order of the Government.

The Experts Committee formed for this purpose recommended addition of a number of drugs for a variety of serious diseases, such as, cancer, hepatitis C, diabetes, cardiovascular, and HIV in the NLEM, to make them more affordable to patients.

Acting on this proposal, the Union Ministry of Health replaced the NLEM 2011 by NLEM 2015 in December 2015. This increased the span of drug price control from 684 to 875 medicines.

According to the well-reputed pharma market research organization – AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt Ltd., with NLEM 2015, still only 18 percent of Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by value will now come under price control, against 17 percent with NLEM 2011.

On May 12, 2016 the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’ started with revising prices of 54 recently included essential medicines in the NLEM 2015, in some cases bringing them down up to 55 percent, in conformance with the DPCO. Again on May 19, 2016 another set of 27 formulations, which, among others, include the treatment for epilepsy, infections and diabetes, were brought under price control.

Does ‘free market economy’ work in pharma industry?

As the NPPA has articulated a number of times, with umpteen number of examples, that arbitrary and wide variation in pricing for the same kind of branded generics is a result of ‘market failure’.

We all are living in a unique situation, where the consumers are unable to participate in the process of an affordable drug selection, much unlike any other consumer goods in a ‘free economy’.

I deliberated this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”, published in this Blog on April 27, 2015.

Conclusion:

Arbitrary drug pricing is increasingly attracting the ire of many Governments, other payers, patients and even some important investors, as we have seen in the United States. Most Indian fund houses and other investors are probably taking stock of the possible emerging situation. A large number of them are, by and large, going by the same old and traditional way of evaluating a pharma business.

Pharma companies, across the world, instead of trying to find out an innovative way to douse this fire for the benefit of all concerned, are getting more and more desperate to rationalize their arbitrary drug pricing, in whatever way they possibly can.

The approach taken by them is convincing none, instead, adding further fuel to the fire. Getting favorable views from some handful of seemingly spoon-fed write-ups, would possibly not help resolve this raging issue or protect public health interest, in any way.

All concerned should try to realize that a utopian ‘free market economy for medicines’, with patients exercising their informed choices, backed by active support from the treating doctor, does not exist in the real world, not just yet.

Thus, arbitrary pricing for essential drugs, where market competition is made irrelevant by many drug makers, allegedly by unethically influencing the prescribers in various ways, merits state intervention, unquestionably, solely to protect patients’ health interest.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges

Posted on September 7, 2015 by Tapan Ray

It is no-brainer that the advocacy initiatives to influence the new Government doing away with the ‘Drug Price Control’ in India has re-started by flooring the gas pedal. A fresh invigorating effort, apparently a pretty expensive one, has been initiated in July 2015 with an interesting study conducted on the subject by an international market research organization, sponsored by a multi-national pharma trade association in India.

Having gone through the report, it appears to me, as if the whole purpose of the study was to rationalize an ‘advance’ conclusion in mind, weaving plethora of data around it for justification.

The report presents an abundance of selective data, apparently to rubbish the very concept of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India. In that process, it reinforced the existence of a deep seated malady in the overall sales and marketing strategic framework of most of the pharma players, rather than failure of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, meant for the essential drugs.

In this article, I shall dwell on this issue adding my own perspective. Although my views are different, I totally respect the findings and suggestions made in this report.

Drug price control in India:

From 1970, Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) are being issued in India under the Essential Commodities Act, without any break, so far. The key intent of the DPCO is to provide quality essential medicines at a reasonably affordable price to the consumer. The DPCO has been amended four times since then, the latest one being DPCO 2013.

Unlike the previous ones, the span of price control of DPCO 2013 is restricted to essential medicines, as featured in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011). The methodology of price control has also now changed to ‘marked-based’ pricing from earlier ‘cost-based’ pricing.

However, for the first time in July 2013, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) extended ‘Drug Price Control’ beyond the Schedule Drugs, when by a notification it announced price fixation of ‘anti-diabetic and cardiovascular drugs in respect of 108 non-scheduled formulation packs under Paragraph 19 of DPCO, 2013’,

Paragraph 19 of DPCO, 2013, authorizes the NPPA in extraordinary circumstances, if it considers it necessary to do so in public interest, to fix the ceiling price or retail price of any drug for such period as it deems fit.

Although the pharma industry initially had supported the switch from ‘cost based’ price control to ‘market based’ price control and only for NLEM 2011 drugs, it took a tougher stand after the above notification. Some trade association reverted to the same good old genre, yet again, trying to establish that ‘Drug Price Control’ does not help at all. The brand new market research report under discussion in this article, appears to be a step in that direction.

‘Market failure in pharma’ where competition does not work:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, as mentioned above, the NPPA justified its action by underscoring ‘market failure’ for those anti-diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, where competition does not work. NPPA considered ‘market failure’ as one of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and explained the situation as follows:

There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price

It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.

In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.

Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

I discussed this subject in my bog post of April 27, 2015 titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”

Are medicines cheapest in India, really?

It is quite often quoted that medicines are cheapest in India. In my view, it would be too simplistic, if we compare the prevailing Indian drug prices in Rupee, against prices of similar drugs in other countries, just by simple conversion of the foreign currencies, such as, US$ and Euro converted into Rupee. To make the comparison realistic and credible, Indian drug prices should be compared against the same in other countries only after applying the following two critical parameters:

Purchasing Power Parity and Per Capita Income
Quantum of per capita ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ on drugs

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) with the help of academia and other experts had earlier deliberated on this issue in one of its reports on patented drugs pricing. The report established that post application of the above two parameters, medicines in India are virtually as expensive as in the developed world, causing great inconvenience to majority of patients in the country.

Hence, common patients expectedly look for some kind of critical intervention by the Government, at least, on the prices of essential drugs in India.

A new study on drug price control:

Recently, I came across a ‘brand new’ research report that tries to justify the fresh stance allegedly taken by the pharma industry on the abolition of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India.

This new study of IMS Health released on July 2015, sponsored by a pharma MNC trade association in India, titled “Assessing the Impact of Price Control Measures on Access to Medicines in India”, categorically highlights ‘price control is neither an effective nor sustainable strategy for improving access to medicines for Indian patients’.

The key findings:

The following are the key findings of the report:

High income patient populations, rather than the low-income targets are the primary beneficiaries of the DPCO 2013.

The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.

The DPCO 2013 has resulted in an increase in market concentration and a decrease in competitive intensity.

Price control has increased margin pressures for small and mid-sized companies, limiting both employment and investment opportunities in the sector.

Price controls negatively impact internal capability-building and expertise-building initiatives, discourage local talent and undermine the government’s ’Make in India’ initiative.

The suggestions made:

In my view, the report almost repeats the same old suggestions being made by the pharma industry over decades. However, while making recommendations, this new report selectively quotes, without clearly naming them, from the draft National Health Policy 2015 and ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the DoP. It also attempts to ride on the shoulder of Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ campaign. The key recommendations of the study are, as follows:

Strengthen healthcare financing and extend universal health coverage across population segments with focus on providing cover for medicines

Invest in healthcare infrastructure and capability building

Promote joint and bulk procurement mechanisms, e.g. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation

Levy a cess on the tobacco and liquor industries to fund the healthcare sector and subsidize essential medicines from taxes

Introduce mechanisms to ensure availability of generics at lower prices, to improve affordability for patients i.e. set up dedicated generic medicine stores.

An official of IMS Health was also quoted by the media that sounds to me almost like pontification:

“Price control has limited impact on improving patient access and, furthermore is not aligned with the requirements of a vibrant economy like India” and the “Government’s priority should be on strengthening India’s healthcare infrastructure and extending universal insurance coverage.”

The blunt edges in the report raise more questions than answers:

I wonder, whether another apparently expensive research, such as this, was at all necessary to reinvent the same old advocacy narratives on ‘Drug Price Control’ in India.

As I note, the report highlights, “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.” If this is true, one should try to fathom:

What does it really mean and what are its implications?
Can it happen, if it has happened, just because of ‘Drug Price Control’?

I am raising these two questions mainly because, price controlled drugs are prescription medicines. Thus, post DPCO 2013, when it happens to ‘prescription only medicines’, other critical questions that come at the top of mind are as follows:

Are the doctors now prescribing less of price controlled drugs? If so, why?

Price controlled drugs being essential drugs, are the doctors prescribing less of essential drugs? If so, why?

Do the doctors prefer prescribing expensive ‘non-schedule’ drugs to patients against their interest? if so, why?

Further, deliberately causing decline in consumption of these drugs, for margin or whatever may be the reasons, without intimating the NPPA as stipulated in the DPCO 2013, is a serious offense, attracting stringent penal action under the Essential Commodities Act.

Therefore, if the above finding of this study is correct and assuming that NPPA is not aware of such shortages or declining consumption of essential drugs in India, yet another critical question that needs to be answered:

By deliberately bringing down the consumption of essential medicines, are the concerned pharma players not taking the law in their own hands?

If yes, the Government would need to act forthwith. If not, the above finding of the report is just not correct.

The DoP, NPPA and other stakeholders would, therefore, need to ferret out, which one of the above two is correct.

Thus, I reckon, to wish away ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, the fresh advocacy initiative of the pharma trade association, keeping in the forefront a new study with blunt edges, raises more questions than answers. I have given just an example here, as above.

More marketing push on ‘free-pricing’ drugs is common:

It is not uncommon that the sales of ‘free-pricing’ drugs are usually more, as their margin is unlimited. Pharma players take increasing interest in those drugs and push them harder, almost totally controlling the ‘push-pull’ effect of drug marketing.

Globally, drug companies take increasing interest in such medicines. India is no exception. Here too ‘out of price control’ non-schedule drugs usually show higher growth, as the doctors are influenced to prescribe more of such drugs, though at the cost of consumer.

This practice may not be acceptable to many, but is a stark reality. This process is expected to continue, at least, till Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) is made mandatory with strict enforcement and strong punitive provisions for any violations.

Is the growth of price controlled drugs declining?

If the growth of price controlled medicines drastically comes down post DPCO 2013, that should get reflected on the declining overall sales and growth of those drugs. Similar pattern should also be visible in the growth of those types products marketed by most of the major pharma companies in India.

Let me now present the scenario of that space. The following analysis is based on the monthly retail audit data of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS.

When I look at the growth of DPCO 2013 products based on NLEM 2011 and other price controlled drugs under ‘Para 19’ from January to July 2015 period in the following table, the scenario does not look as worrying just yet, as the above report has made it out to be.

Product group-wise market growth (in Value):

Month (2015)	DPCO products (%)	DPCO Para 19 Products (%)	Non-DPCO Products (%)	Total Market Growth (%)
July	5.1	11.8	14.2	12.9
June	5.6	14.6	16.2	14.8
May	5.3	7.2	12.1	11.0
April	11.1	11.9	18.4	17.2
March	1.6	15.6	21.7	20.9
February	13.9	14.4	20.0	18.9
January	6.9	NA	14.0	12.7

(Source: AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS )

Again, in the following table, when I look at the growth of DPCO 2013 products of some the very major pharma players in India, the conclusion still remains the same as above:

DPCO Products Growth (%) by major companies (Jan-July 2015):

Company	July	June	May	April	March	Feb	Jan
Ranbaxy	20.5	31.9	29.5	17.3	27.6	20.7	53.7
Pfizer	13.0	17.4	5.7	16.7	25.6	21.1	18.6
Abbott	7.2	11.7	18.5	13.5	15.5	18.3	21.2
GSK	-2.1	- 1.8	-1.2	12.2	12.2	NA	NA

(Source: AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS )

The blunt edges fail to cut ice:

Quite expectedly, even a month after its release in July 2015, the blunt edges in the report seem to have cut no ice, especially at a very important place that matters most to the industry in this area. This observation gets vindicated by a credible media report.

On August 24, 2015 in an interview to a national business daily, V K Subburaj, the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals commented, “Price control on drugs a shot in the arm for health care” and “the Government cannot do away with it.”

He argued, “A large section of the population is poor. Suddenly, your system is disturbed if you have to spend more on drugs. Drugs are an important component of health care expenditure.”

Accepting the fact that in India, big and small companies investing in research would need more money, Mr. Subburaj said, “In India, we can’t afford to remove controls as the burden of disease is high.”

Conclusion:

With all due respect to all concerned, the above report appears to me palpably commercial, sans any worthy academic value or intellectual input that could trigger thinking for a change in the Government policy. The report apparently lacks in the required cutting edge to achieve the intended goal. The blunt edges are glaring, suggesting on the contrary, that the real action actually lies with the industry. Let me hasten to add, if any one has a different view on the subject, I would respect that with all humility.

The drug price control in India has been continuing since 1970, without any gap. The retail audit data clearly indicates that the growth of the Indian pharma industry did not get stunted or stifled during the period for this particular reason, as postulated in the above report of IMS Health. On the contrary, despite price control of drugs with all its ‘ill-effects’, as highlighted in the study, the growth of the Indian pharma industry in the last 4 decades has been nothing less than spectacular. This would consequently mean, increasing consumption of drugs, leading to improving access to medicines in India, including its hinterland, though may still not be good enough. I discussed this subject in my blog post of December 13, 2013, titled “Access to Medicine: Losing Track in Cacophony”.

Coincidentally, at the commencement of drug price control regime in India, almost all, if not all, the players in the ‘Top 10’ pharma league table of the country, were multi-national drug companies. Today the situation has just reversed. Out of ‘Top 10’, about 7 are home grown drug companies. Many of these companies were born post 1970. Without M&As by the pharma MNCs, this number could have been even higher today.

When it comes to profitability, it is worth mentioning, the soft-spoken and well-respected owner of the so called ‘low margin’ generic pharma company – Sun Pharma, is the second-richest person of the country. He created his initial wealth from India, despite ostensible ‘growth stunting’ price control – as elaborated in the above report.

By the way, what is the span of drug price control in India really – just around 18 percent of the total domestic pharma market now? More than 80 percent of the local drug market continue to remain in the ‘free-pricing’ and ‘high-profit’ zone. In that case, is the essence of the report not chanting… ‘yeh dil maange more’?

By: Tapan J. Ray

India’s Drug Pricing Policy: “Absurd, Unreasonable And Irrational” – Supreme Court

Posted on July 20, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On July 15, 2015, while hearing a petition related to the current ‘Market Based Drug-Pricing Policy’ of the country, the Supreme Court of India expressed its bewilderment on the very rationality of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012’ and directed the Government for its review.

The petition was filed by an NGO called, ‘All India Drug Action Network’. It pleaded before the honorable court that ‘Market Based Drug-Pricing’ that is currently followed in India, was never used for any price regulatory purposes. Under this new policy, simple average ‘Ceiling Prices’, in many cases, are higher than the market leader price.

The petitioner reportedly also alleged that under the new drug policy, the profit margin for pharma companies and dealers has become in the range of 10-1300 per cent. Thus, the NGO sought a direction to the Government to continue with earlier ‘Cost-Based Pricing’ to arrive at ‘Ceiling Prices’ for all essential drugs.

‘All India Drug Action Network’ contended that the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’ consisted of only 348 drugs and had left out many other essential medicines from price control. Thus, it sought inclusion of more life-saving medicines in the NLEM whose prices would be regulated by the government. It also pleaded that the price control must extend to various “dosages, strength and combinations” of those drugs falling under NLEM.

Expressing its serious concern, the three-judge bench of the Apex Court reportedly told the Government, “You are fixing the maximum price of a medicine above the retail price of the leading company of the same drug. It is absurd.”

The honorable Supreme Court reportedly also observed that the “pharmaceutical companies were already charging 5,000 times of the production cost and then you are taking the average of them and fixing under the drug price control order. This is legitimizing the profiteering”.

Many construe this observation of the Supreme Court as virtual endorsement of ‘All India Drug Action Network’s accusation that the earlier ‘cost-based drug-pricing’ model was better for the patients, whereas the new ‘market-based drug pricing’ model just legitimizes profiteering and pushes drugs out of reach of the poor, who are already suffering under very high ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure burden.

The Honorable Court reportedly asked the Department of Pharmaceuticals of Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers to reconsider aspects like the formula to fix prices. And thereafter pass a “reasoned” order on the representation of the NGO on the issue within six months after hearing all parties concerned. It also asked the Centre to file a copy of its decision on the representation of NGO, which would file it in six weeks.

However, at the very beginning the bench had expressed, “this is not an easy area for the courts to intervene and it is very difficult for a court to sit in judgment in such kind of policy matters.”

The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Government reportedly submitted that the Government is open to consider the representation. “We will have a look to add some more drugs under the price control order”, she reportedly said.

Key objectives for drug price control in India:

As has now been well established, backed by robust data, that in a country like India ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ for medicines is very high.

According to the World Bank Out-of-pocket health expenditure (% of private expenditure on health) in India was last measured at 85.88 in 2013.

In a situation like this, to ensure adequate access to affordable essential medicines for the common man, the Government has hardly any option but to regulate the prices of, at least, the essential medicines.

To achieve this objective meaningfully, the Government through the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’ tries to make sure that all such medicines are:

Adequately Available
Reasonably Affordable

Therefore, maintaining a right balance between ‘affordability’ and ‘availability’ of medicines is of critical importance, while framing any drug pricing policy, .

A January, 2013 article titled, “Pharma Policy 2012 and Essential Drug’s Pricing” gives the following examples to illustrate how current ‘market based pricing’ mechanism is going to make many drugs costlier:

Drug	Disease	Market-based pricing (simple average)	Cost based pricing
Metformin	Diabetes	Rs.35	Rs.14
Atorvastatin	Cholesterol	Rs.127	Rs.16
Atenolol	Hypertension	Rs.38.5	Rs.08

Source: Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA)

Why ‘drug price control’ at all in a ‘Free Market Economy’?

It is indeed a very pertinent question to ponder over.

However, equally pertinent answers are also available. One such was deliberated in a 2014 paper titled, “Competition Issues in the Indian Pharmaceuticals Sector” of Delhi School Economics (DSE). The paper deals with the subject related to failure of ‘Free Market Economy’ especially for branded generic drugs in India, despite seemingly intense price competition.

In an ideally free-market economy model, for each of these brands of identical drugs, having similar regulatory approvals from the Indian drug regulator on efficacy, safety and quality standards, competitive forces should have prompted uniform or at least near uniform prices for all such products.

Any brand of the same drug/drugs charging more, should generally have attracted lesser customers, if consumers would have exercised their purchase decisions directly; efficacy, safety and quality standards being the same, as certified by the drug regulator.

Interestingly, for prescription medicines, the much proven process of consumers exercising their free choice to select a brand, influenced by advertising or other available information, does not happen at all.

A snapshot of key changes in the new drug policy over the previous one:

The ‘Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013)’ clearly articulates two basic changes in the criteria for drug price control in India, as follows:

1. Span of price control:

This was re-defined in DPCO 2013 based on the ‘essentiality criteria’ of the drugs, which in turn is based on the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’, instead of bulk drug based price control of DPCO 1995.

2. Methodology of price control:

This was also re-defined in DPCO 2013, making a clear departure from ‘Cost-Based Price Control’ of DPCO 1995 to ‘Market-Based Price Control’. The ‘Ceiling Prices’ are now arrived at by calculating the simple average price of each essential drug with market share of 1 percent and above. Instead, in DPCO 1995, ‘Ceiling Prices’ of price-controlled drugs used to be arrived at by applying specified ‘Maximum Allowable Post Manufacturing Expenditure (MAPE)’ on the manufacturing costs of each of such formulations.

Key lacunae in DPCO 2013:

Besides contentious methodology of price control in DPCO 2013, NLEM 2011 does not also cover a wide range of essential drugs, which are so important for patients. I had highlighted this issue in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Is The New ’Market Based Pricing Model’ Fundamentally Flawed?”

NLEM 2011 does not cover many combinations of TB drugs, a large number of important drugs for diabetes and hypertension. Many other critical life saving medicines, such as, anti-cancer drugs, expensive antibiotics and products needed for organ transplantation have been left out of price control. In fact, the prices of a number of these drugs have reportedly gone up after the notification of DPCO 2013, though NPPA has now started acting on this avoidable trend.

The government has reportedly admitted in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that the market value and share of medicines covered by new DPCO 2013, as ‘Essential Drugs’, is a meager 18 per cent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), instead of 20 percent under DPCO 1995.

As a result, DPCO 2013 based on NLEM 2011 undermines the entire objective of making essential drugs affordable to all.

All these lacunae in the current DPCO 2013 calls for a major revision of NLEM 2011, besides methodology of ‘Ceiling Price’ calculations. The Union Health Ministry has reportedly initiated steps to revise the list considering the existing market conditions and usage of drugs by the patients. This has reportedly happened again as recently as on July 16, 2015.

Observations of Indian lawmakers:

On April 20, 2015, a panel of 31 lawmakers of the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers tabled its report in the Indian Parliament. The committee emphasized that patients in India should have access to all medicines, including life saving drugs, at affordable prices. Accordingly, it recommended expansion of the scope of price control to all medicines available in the country.

The Committee wondered why all medicines are still not listed in the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’ and is of the view that drugs of all kinds are essential and are required by the patients for treatment of various disease conditions at different times.

Government defines “Market Failure for pharmaceuticals”:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, the NPPA has categorically stated about “Market Failure for pharmaceuticals” as follows:

There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price.

It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.

In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.

Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for the Government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most patients. This also puts huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

Has DPCO 2013 delivered?

Many stakeholders, barring some NGOs, felt initially that DPCO 2013 would be a win-win drug pricing policy for both the industry and patients, as it would apparently be less intrusive for the pharma players.

Along side, through ‘Public Relations’ overdrive, a hype was successfully created in the media by vested interests to generate a feeling that the drug prices are coming down by 30-40 percent as a result of the new market-based price control regime under DPCO 2013.

That could well be true for a handful of drugs. However, the fact is that the industry was adversely impacted by just around 2.3 percent, with the provision for annual price increases for even the price-controlled drugs. On the other hand, the span of price control came down from 20 percent of the just pervious DPCO 1995 to 18 percent in DPCO 2013, not impacting the industry as significantly as it was hyped before. This is quite evident even from the reported overall performance of the industry.

For the general patients, by and large, DPCO 2013 has not delivered what it was expected to on the ground.

Conclusion:

Realization of these facts has been just enough for the public disillusionment to set in, with a possible snowballing effect. Now the Supreme Court has intervened responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It has also made tough observations on the rationale of ‘market based drug price control’ and directed the government to review it.

On the other side, the Government appointed experts are reportedly revisiting the NLEM 2011 to include more essential drugs in this list.

In the midst of all these, the same drug pricing juggernaut continues to keep rolling, with almost similar narrative, though with different packaging and all associated theatrics of the day. Universal Health Care (UHC) for all now seems to be no more than an illusion, as vindicated by the recent union budgetary allocations for health in India

The Supreme Court of the country has observed afresh that India’s drug pricing policy is “Absurd, Unreasonable and Irrational”. This ticks the general population looking up to the honorable Apex Court as the savior to their long outstanding misery in this area, especially when steep ‘Out of Pocket Health Expenditure’ in India continues to stand out as a sore thumb.

Be that as it may, hoping against hope, the common man continues to clutch on mostly to Government assurances, just on its face value, that ‘Achhe din anne wale hain (Good days are coming)’ for most patients in the country…who knows?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?

Posted on April 27, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Currently, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has fixed prices of 509 formulation packs, covering 348 drugs, based on NLEM, as specified in the Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013. Such price controlled essential drugs currently contribute less than 18 percent of the total pharmaceutical market of India in value terms. Whereas, according to reports, total number of formulation packs in India would be much over 60,000.

The panel noted that the ceiling prices of even all those medicines, which should come under price control under DPCO 2013, are yet to be announced by the NPPA. Accordingly, it advised the Government to expedite the process of notifying ceiling prices for all the remaining medicines featuring in the NLEM, without further delay.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee observed that Rs 17,944 Crore was spent in 2013-14 to import medicinal and pharmaceutical products. It expressed dissatisfaction on the Department of Pharmaceuticals’ (DoP) explanation that imports were made on quality and economic considerations and not necessarily because the products were unavailable at home.

“The Committee is of the strong view that to realize the dream of ‘Make in India’ concept in pharmaceutical sector, the government should boost and incentivize domestic bulk drug industry and discourage Indian pharmaceutical firms from importing”, the report said.

It also observed that to make India self-reliant in this area, revival of sick public sector units was necessary to create capacity of bulk drugs. The Committee urged the DoP to expedite formulation of ‘Make in India’ policy for APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients) in India.

Indictment against the DoP:

The committee reportedly came down heavily on the DoP for its inability to utilize funds allocated for various purposes, which clearly speaks about “the poor performance of the department in utilization of its plan allocation.”

The report clearly mentions, “The committee therefore feels that department could not achieve its avowed objectives and targets set for various scheme/programs unless the funds are utilized by the department optimally and efficiently.”

Stating that the department “should make earnest efforts for optimum utilization of funds allocated to them”, the committee expressed it would “like to be apprised of the initiatives undertaken by the department in this regard”.

A quick recapitulation:

In may 2012, the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 58th Report also expressed great concern on rampant prescription of irrational and useless drugs by many doctors with ‘ulterior motives’ and expressed the need of inclusion of the essential and lifesaving drugs under strict price regulation.

As it usually takes a very long time to effect any perceptible change in India, the above critical observations, as well, remained virtually unattended, even today.

Does ‘Competition’ impact Branded generic pricing?

I am personally a strong believer of ‘free-market economy’, driven by ‘market competition’, for the industrial sectors in general. It ensures rapid economic progress and growth, creating much needed wealth to cater to the growing needs of various kinds for the citizens of a nation.

However, I would strongly argue that Indian pharma industry is one of the key exceptions in this regard; as it is basically a branded generic market contributing over 90 percent to the total domestic pharmaceutical retail market.

Although, domestic market of branded generic drugs is quite crowded with a large number of respective ‘brands’ of exactly the same off-patent molecule/molecules available at widely different price ranges, patients do not derive any economic benefit out of such intense competition in a ‘free-market economy’. This happens, as the patients have no say or role in the brand selection process of the doctors to choose a price of their likings and affordability, especially when the basic drug/drugs are the same for all those brands.

Examples of huge rice variation in branded generics of the same drug:

A Research Paper published in The Indian Journal of Applied Research’ of May 2014, titled, “Cost Variation Study of Anti-diabetics: Indian Scenario” observed as follows:

“In Single drug therapy, among sulfonylurea group of drugs, Glimepiride (2 mg) shows maximum price variation of 829.72%, while Glipizide (10mg) shows minimum variation. In Meglitinides groups of drugs Repaglinide (0.5mg) shows maximum price variation 194.73% and Nateglinide (120mg) shows Minimum price variation. In Biguanides & Thizolidinediones groups of drugs, Metformin (500 mg) & Pioglitazone (15 mg) show maximum price variation of 384.18% & 600 % respectively. In α-glucosidase inhibitor group of drugs, Voglibose (0.2mg) shows maximum price variation of 387.17%, while Miglitol (25mg) shows minimum price variation.”

“In combination therapies, Glimepiride+Metformin (1+500mg) combination shows the maximum variation up to 475 %. In case of Insulin Premixed 30/70 100IU/ml shows maximum price variation of 1881.24%, while minimum variation is found with short acting 40IU/ml.”

Similar scenario prevails virtually in all therapy categories in India.

No qualms on branding:

It is understandable that generic drugs are branded o create differentiation even within exactly identical drugs. There are no qualms on branding per se, which comes at a reasonably high cost though. However, the question is, who pays for this branding exercise and for what additional tangible value/values?

If no additional tangible value is added to a generic medicine through branding, why should most of the patients sweat to pay significantly extra amount, just to help the pharma companies fighting with each other to increase their respective pies of revenue and profit?

Why drug price control in a ‘Free Market Economy’?

It is indeed a very pertinent question. Equally pertinent answers are also available in a 2014 paper titled, “Competition Issues in the Indian Pharmaceuticals Sector” of Delhi School Economics (DSE). The paper deals with issues related to failure of ‘Free Market Economy’, despite intense competition, especially for branded generic drugs in India.

In an ideally free-market economic model, for each of these brands of identical drugs, having similar regulatory approvals from the Indian drug regulator on efficacy, safety and quality standards, competitive forces should have prompted uniform or at least near uniform prices for all such products.

Interestingly, for prescription medicines, the much proven process of consumers exercising their free choice to select a brand, influenced by advertising, does not happen at all.

Branded generics pricing paradox:

In the pharmaceutical market place, the scenario is almost just the reverse of what should happen in a highly competitive ‘free market’ model.

This means, highest priced branded varieties of identical drugs, mostly enjoy highest market share too. This in turn proves that competition within the pharma brands do not bring down the prices, benefiting the consumers/patients.

Branding of generic drugs:

Unlike many developed nations, in India, even the off-patent generic drugs are branded and differentiated on flimsy perception based intangibles to the prescribers, along with other contentious and dubious sales tools, decrying unbranded generics.

This is done in the guise of so-called pharma ‘sales and marketing’ strategies, which are sometimes shrewd and many times equally blatant, if not crude.

The DSE paper, very clearly says, ‘head to head’ competition between undifferentiated (non-branded) products would certainly cause a precipitous fall in prices.

However, it is generally believed, the prescription demand of branded generic drugs is basically created by influencing the prescribing behavior of the medical practitioners. Not just by personal selling through medical representatives, medical advertising and publicity of different types, but also through a chain of processes that many stakeholders, including the Government and law-makers generally consider as grossly unethical.

In January 2015, the Government directive for implementation of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ by the pharma industry in India, further reinforces the point.

‘Dorfman-Steiner’ condition vindicated:

The above paper from the DSE underscores the old and well-established ‘Dorfman-Steiner’ condition that mathematically proves that the price-cost margin is positively related to the ratio of advertising expenditure to sales revenue.

Quoting a practicing surgeon, the DSE article states:

“Sometimes it could be just plain ignorance about the availability of a cheaper alternative that makes doctors continue to prescribe costlier brands. But one cannot ignore the role of what are euphemistically called marketing “incentives”, which basically mean the inappropriate influence pharmaceutical companies exert on doctors. This runs deep. Hospitals choose to stock only certain drugs in their in-house pharmacies and insist that hospitalized patients buy drugs only from the hospital pharmacy. Drug companies sell drugs to hospitals at a price much lower than what the patient is charged, further incentivizing the hospital to stock their products. The cheaper brands often get left out in this game.”

Reasons for success of high-priced branded generics:

Low priced non – branded cheaper generics have been systematically made to perceive as of low quality. In several media reports, including some recent ones even some well-known doctors castigated the low priced non- branded cheaper generics. Pharma industry lobby groups, in tandem, has been strongly resisting various Government initiatives of un-branding the generic drugs.

Over a long time, a common public perception has been painstakingly created that high-priced branded generics are more of high quality; MNC brands are of better quality than their ‘Desi’ counterparts and branded generics are more reliable than their non-branded equivalents.

This perception is fuelled by poor enforcement of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India that also regulates drug-manufacturing standards in the country, besides the prevailing overall drug regulatory scenario in the country.

The New Government attributes “Market Failure for pharmaceuticals”:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, the NPPA has categorically stated the following:

There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price.

It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.

In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.

Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

Civil Society echoed the same sentiment:

In this context, it is important to note that in a letter dated August 20, 2014 written by seven large Civil Society Organizations to Mr. Ananth Kumar, the present Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers with a copy to Prime Minister Modi, articulated similar view, as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

I broached on a similar issue in my blog post of April 6, 2015 titled, “Would Affordable ‘Modicare’ Remain Just A Pipe Dream In India?”

An opposite view: ‘Bad Medicine’

On April 23, 2015, an Editorial with the above headline, articulating exactly opposite viewpoint, was published in a leading English business daily.

With all due respect to the concerned editor, it appeared quite funny, if not ‘hilarious’ to me for several reasons. One of which is seemingly total lack of understanding on the issue by the concerned editor.

I am quoting below some of the most obvious ones, just to cite as examples:

A. Quoting the above recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on drug price control the Editorial states:

“Not only will this make investors from other countries look at India with suspicion – Japanese pharma firm Daiichi just exited its disastrous investment in Ranbaxy (later taken over by Sun Pharma) – it will ensure Indian patients are deprived of good quality medicines.”

It is known to everybody that drug price control in India had got nothing to do with the exit of Daiichi. It was primarily due to import bans by the USFDA, caused by alleged falsification of GMP related data in Ranbaxy’s manufacturing plants selling drugs to America.

B. The Editorial continues:

“So much for Make-in-India—the other problem with price controls is that, with little incentive to invest in fraud-prevention, between a fourth and a third of India’s pharmaceuticals production is estimated to be spurious. Also, price caps have resulted in a situation where R&D expenses are very low, and there is little research on drugs of particular relevance to India.”

Again, it is much known fact that over 82 percent of Indian pharmaceutical market is currently outside price control, offering free-pricing opportunity. What does then prevent the drug companies to come out robust ‘fraud-prevention’ measures for all those free-pricing drugs?

C. The Editor stated:

“Since Indian prices are amongst the lowest in the world, it is not clear what exactly the committee had in mind, more so since costs of medicine are not, in any case, the most expensive part of medical treatment.”

Of course, all concerned knows that lowest range of generic drug prices in India, are perhaps the cheapest in the world. However, the point is, should it be considered in isolation? Not in relation to per capita income of the Indians? Not in terms of Purchasing Power Parity? In drug pricing context, one Committee Report of the DoP had shown, when adjusted against these two factors, drug prices in India are as high, if not more, as compared to the developed countries of the world.

I hasten to add that I fully resect all different view points. If I have made any mistakes in understanding this piece of bizarre editorial, I am more than willing to stand corrected with all humility, as this a very serious issue of ‘what is right’ and NOT ‘who is right’.

Conclusion:

India is a market of branded generics, where brand differentiation process involves creation of mostly unsubstantiated perceptions.

As the stakeholders, media and even the Indian Government have alleged, drug companies exert a strong influence in the brand prescription decision of the doctors, even at the cost of patients who cannot afford the same.

Even in a free-market economy with cutthroat competition, patients do not have any means to exercise their price preferences even within identical branded generic drugs. They are compelled to buy high priced brands, as prescribed by their doctors, even where low priced identical equivalents are available.

This condition gives rise into ‘Market Failure’, especially for branded generics in India. The NPPA has unequivocally enunciated it, which I have quoted above.

Being a strong believer and votary of ‘free-market economy’ and ‘market competition’, I find this pharma scenario unique. It is a rare example of failure of otherwise so successful free-market economy model, especially in the branded generic pharma space of India.

Around a decade ago, the ‘Indian Journal of Medical Ethics’ (IJME, January – March 2004 issue) captured the very essence of this deliberation, epitomized in the following sentence:

“If the one who decides, does not pay and the one who pays, does not decide and if the one who decides is ‘paid’, will truths stand any chance?”

By: Tapan J. Ray

Paying For The Best Health Outcomes At The Lowest Possible Cost

Posted on December 8, 2014 by Tapan Ray

“Bayer CEO Dr. Marijn Dekkers is happy to have fair Outcomes-Based Pricing”, reported ‘PharmaTimes’ on December 3, 2014.

Dr. Dekkers was quoted saying, “It is okay to be tested on that in the process of price-setting, that is fine, we should only be paid for the value we bring”. However, at the same time he also reminded, “When we have a new drug that is significantly better than the previous drug but the previous drug just went generic, we are compared to the 20% price, not the 100% price”.

I reckon, the above statement of the Bayer CEO sounds quite amazing, if not bizarre, especially considering the legality in the prevailing global pharma patent regime. Thus, any discontentment in this area, howsoever intense these are, would unlikely to be able to attract any unbiased favorable ear, across the world.

Another aspect of the aggressive patented drug pricing trend, I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?” of October 27, 2014.

What is it really?

As many would know, another common terminology of Outcome-Based Pricing (OBP) is Value-Based-Pricing (VBP). This approach for pricing is basically intended to offering the best value for the money spent in healthcare. It is ‘the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’. For pharmaceutical players, VBP/OBP would mean not charging more than the actual real value of the product offerings.

As we shall find below, this concept is gaining ground now in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcomes’ data using similar or equivalent products. Cost of incremental value that a product will deliver is of key significance. Some independent organizations such as, the ‘National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)’in the United Kingdom (UK) has taken a leading role in this area.

An evolving scenario:

It would be worthwhile to note that over a period of time, while pricing new pharma products, manufacturers have been traditionally considering the costs of all inputs of various kinds incurred to bring these drugs into the market and thereafter adding hefty mark-ups on those medicines in a non-transparent manner to arrive at the market price.

This absolutely opaque process of patented drugs pricing is increasingly making the stakeholders, such as patients’ groups, payors, including the governments and insurers much concerned about the differential value offerings of these high priced new drugs over the existing ones for commensurate improvement in the actual health outcomes for the patients.

The relevance:

In the past decade, there has been a clear trend in the price negotiation of new and complex pharma based on health outcomes models as the pharma players are coming under increasing pressure from the payors/patients to improve the treatment cost-effectiveness.

In an article published in the Harvard Business Review of October 2013, Michael Porter and Thomas Lee had cautioned, “ In healthcare, the days of business as usual are over…it is time for a fundamentally new strategy. At its core is maximizing value for patients: that is, achieving the best outcomes at the lowest cost.”

They elucidated the relevance of value based pricing, supporting very strongly the idea of paying for “value” in healthcare.

Thus, if this trend were not checked, the healthcare spending would keep going up, as it is happening today globally, impacting access of these drugs to patients significantly due to spiraling cost pressure.

A recent vindication:

‘Gallup’ in an articles titled, “Cost Still a Barrier Between Americans and Medical Care” published in December 5, 2014, has reported that in U.S., 33% of Americans have put off medical treatment because of cost. Interestingly, more of them put off treatment for serious conditions than non-serious and more with private insurance had put off treatment in 2014 than 2013.

Thus, to address this issue, as we shall see below, various governments either have or in the process of developing regulatory policies to rationalize new drug prices based on the Outcome/Value-Based Pricing (OBP/VBP) Models of different kinds.

In this backdrop, Bayer CEO’s acceptance of OBP/VBP is indeed a welcoming development. This process is undoubtedly one of the most reasonable ways to arrive at a patented drug price.

For a large majority of stakeholders, treatment outcomes and differential value offerings of new medicines are the most critical factors to monitor the value pathway of patients’ medical care, irrespective of types of illnesses.

The move has already commenced:

Deloitte Center for Health Solutions in a study on Value-Based Pricing for

Pharmaceuticals, has highlighted that unlike the United States, many countries, where the government plays a decisive role in pricing and price negotiations of pharmaceuticals, have focused on reducing costs through value-based pricing agreements.

The article gives examples of Denmark, where Bayer entered into a “no cure, no pay” initiative on Levitra (vardenafil) for erectile dysfunction in 2005. Patients not satisfied with the treatment were eligible for a refund. Similarly, in 2007, after the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom (UK) initially concluded that Velcade (bortezomib) was too expensive as compared to its estimated benefits to the population, Johnson & Johnson offered to forgo charges for patients who did not have an adequate medication response.

Further, according to the Burrill Report of October 2013, as part of an effort to regain market share for its statin Zocor, which had been losing ground to then Warner Lambert’s Lipitor, Merck had reportedly offered an out of box proposition to consumers and insurers in 1998. Merck’s “Get to Goal” guarantee offered refunds to any takers who failed to reach target cholesterol levels set by their doctors within six months of using Zocor and adjusting their diet.

Could serve the purpose of global pharma too:

The above Burrill Report also states, “The performance-based pricing also serves a simpler purpose for drug makers. It allows them to provide discounts that may be necessary to establish acceptable value in one market without affecting the price for a drug in other markets around the world as a number of payers peg the price they will pay for a drug to what price a specific country may negotiate with the drug maker.”

Following this trend it appears that like Dr. Dekkers, other head honchos of global pharma majors would ultimately be left with no option but to willy-nilly toe this line in most of the countries across the world for their patented products.

This would be necessitated due to increasing product-pricing pressure based on quantification of differential benefits of the new medicines over already existing ones, as would be reflected in the analysis of intensive cost-effectiveness data.

Defining a measure of cost-effectiveness:

One of the several other methods to measure the cost-effectiveness of a new drug, as reported in a case study published by ‘2020 Public Services Trust at the RSA’, is as under:

“The efficiency of new products can be captured through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). These are usually based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which are a measure of how many extra months or years of reasonable quality life a patient might gain as a result of treatment, based on average life expectancy. Life expectancy is usually extrapolated from the results of clinical trials whilst the quality adjustment is based on patients’ experiential response to the level of pain, mobility and general mood which are usually expressed as a weighted utility value of between 0 and 1. The final calculation of the ratio is based on the difference in the cost to QALY ratio between the new drug and the standard available treatment. However, to make sense of the ICERs it has been necessary to establish thresholds beyond which drugs are no longer deemed cost-effective.”

As the above case study highlights, “NICE had established a notional upper limit of £20-30,000 per QALY above which a drug will generally not be recommended, although in exceptional circumstances this can be increased as was the case for beta-interferon, where it was raised to £36,000.”

The Indian perspective:

In developing countries such as India, expenditure towards medicines is considered as an investment made by patients to improve their health and productivity at work. Maximizing benefits from such spending will require avoidance of those medicines, which will not be effective together with the use of lowest cost option with comparable value and ‘health outcomes’.

For this reason, as stated above, many countries have started engaging the regulatory authorities to come out with head to head clinical comparison of similar or equivalent drugs keeping ultimate ‘health outcomes’ of patients in mind.

A day may come in India too, when the regulatory authorities will concentrate on ‘outcomes/value-based’ pricing models, both for patented and high price branded generics, where low priced equivalents are available.

However, at this stage it appears, this would take some more time. Till then for ‘health outcomes’ based medical prescriptions, working out ‘Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG)’, especially for those diseases, which are most prevalent in India, should assume high importance.

Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG):

STG is usually defined as systematically developed statements designed to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate cost-effective treatment in specific disease areas.

For each disease area, the treatment should include “the name, dosage form, strength, average dose (pediatric and adult), number of doses per day, and number of days of treatment.” STG also includes specific referral criteria from a lower to a higher level of the diagnostic and treatment requirements.

In India, the medical experts have already developed STGs for some disease areas. However, formulation of STGs covering all major disease areas and, more importantly, their effective implementation would ensure cost-effective healthcare benefits to a vast majority of population.

The Ministry of health of the respective states of India should encourage the medical professionals/institutions to lay more emphasis on ‘health-outcomes/value based’ prescription of medicines, ensuring more cost effective treatment for their patients.

Conclusion:

The medical practitioners in their part should ideally volunteer to avoid prescribing expensive drugs offering no significant improvement in ‘health outcomes’, against the cheaper equivalents. The Government should initially encourage it through ‘self-regulation’ and if it does not work, stringent regulatory measures must be strictly enforced, within a reasonable time frame.

Be that as it may, it clearly emerges today that in the healthcare arena, effective implementation of ‘Outcomes/Value-Based-Pricing-Models’ would ensure paying for the best health outcomes at the lowest possible cost, especially for those who deserve it the most, not just in India, but across the world too.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Pricing

Drugs & Devices: Chasing Never-Enough Profit And Price Control

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention

Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges

India’s Drug Pricing Policy: “Absurd, Unreasonable And Irrational” – Supreme Court

Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?

Paying For The Best Health Outcomes At The Lowest Possible Cost