Is Credibility Erosion of Pharma Accelerating?

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Tapan Ray

‘Big Pharma’ now seems to be desperately trying to gain the long lost high moral ground by pushing hard its gigantic image makeover juggernaut, maintaining a strong pitch on the relevance of stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the lives of the patients. However, even more alert media, by reporting a number of unethical and fraudulent activities of some of its constituents on the ground, is taking much of the steam out of it. As a result, the pace of erosion of all important pharma credibility is fast accelerating.

Innovation – A critical need for any science-based business:

Innovation, which eventually leads to the issue of IPR, is generally regarded as extremely important to meet the unmet needs of patients in the battle against diseases of all types, especially the dreaded ones. Thus, it has always been considered as the bedrock of the global pharmaceutical industry. As we all know, even the cheaper generic drugs originate from off-patent innovative medicines.

At the same time, it is equally important to realize that just as the pharmaceutical or life-science businesses, innovation is critical for any other science based businesses too, such as IT, Automobile, Aviation, besides many others. Since many centuries, even when there were no ‘Patents Act’ anywhere in the world, leave aside robust ones, pharmaceutical industry has been predominantly growing through innovation and will keep becoming larger and larger through the same process, acrimonious debate over stringent IPR regime not withstanding.

India has also amply demonstrated its belief that innovation needs to be encouraged and protected with a well-balanced Intellectual Property regime in the country, when it became a member of the World Trade Organization and a part of the TRIPS Agreement, as I had discussed in my earlier blog post.

Simultaneously, a recent research report is worth noting, as well. The study reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States, since mid 2000, have spent around US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones. This is indeed a matter of great concern, just as a very ‘stringent IP regime’ prompts ‘evergreening’ of patents, adversely impacting the patients’ health interest.

Though innovation is much needed, obscene pricing of many patented drugs is limiting their access to majority of the world population. On top of that, business malpractices net of fines, wherever caught, are adding to the cost of medicines significantly.

Key reasons for acceleration of credibility erosion:

I reckon, following are the three main factors accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and Big Pharma in particular:

Large scale reported business malpractices affecting patients’ health interest
Very high prices of patented medicines in general, adversely impacting patients’ access and cost of treatment
Attempts to influence IP laws of many countries for vested interests

1. Accelerating credibility erosion due to business malpractices:

In the pharmaceutical sector across the world, including India, the Marketing and Clinical Trial (CT) practices have still remained very contentious issues, despite many attempts of so called ‘self-regulation’ by the industry associations. Incessant complaints as reported by the media, judicial fines and settlements for fraudulent practices of some important pharma players leave no breather to anyone.

To illustrate the point, let me quote below a few recent examples:

Global:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder. According to the Italian regulator Avastin costs up to 81 euros, against around 900 euros for Lucentis. Out of the total amount, Novartis would require to pay 92 million euros and Roche 90.5 million euros. Roche’s Genentech unit and Novartis had developed Lucentis. Roche markets the drug in the United States, while Novartis sells it in the rest of the world. Quoting the Italian regulator, the report says that the said practices cost Italy’s health system more than 45 million euros in 2012 alone, with possible future costs of more than 600 million euros a year.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges. An investigation of those former employees of Sanofi unearthed that they had made illicit payments to get more orders from pharma dealer.

In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline was reportedly fined US$ 3 bn in the United States after admitting to bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. According to the report, the company encouraged sales reps in the US to ‘mis-sell’ three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.

In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Not so long ago, after regulatory authorities in China cracked down on GlaxoSmithKline for allegedly bribing of US$490 million to Chinese doctors through travel agencies, whistleblower accusations reverberated spanning across several pharma MNCs, including Sanofi. The company reportedly paid ¥1.7 million (US$277,000) in bribes to 503 doctors around the country, forking over ¥80 to doctors each time a patient bought its products.

All these are not new phenomena. For example, In the area of Clinical Trial, an investigation by the German magazine Der Spiegel reportedly uncovered in May, 2013 that erstwhile international conglomerates such as Bayer, Hoechst (now belongs to Sanofi), Roche, Schering (now belongs to Bayer) and Sandoz (now belongs to Novartis) carried out more than 600 tests on over 50,000 patients, mostly without their knowledge, at hospitals and clinics in the former Communist state. The companies were said to have paid the regime the equivalent of €400,000 per test.

India:

Compared to the actions now being taken by the law enforcers overseas, India has shown a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, as on date. It is astonishing that unlike even China, no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by Indian media has now triggered a debate in the country on the subject. It has been reported that a related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry. The Government, so far, has shown no active interest in this area, either.

In an article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off”, published in a leading business daily of India, states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

In the drug manufacturing quality area, USFDA and MHRA (UK) has recently announced a number of ‘Import Bans’ for drugs manufactured in some facilities of Ranbaxy and Wockhardt, as those medicines could compromise with the drug safety concerns of the patients in the US and UK. Even as recent as in late March 2014, the USFDA has reportedly issued a warning letter to another domestic drug maker USV Ltd on data integrity-related violations in good manufacturing practices occurred at the company’s Mumbai facility. This is indeed a cause of added concern.

Similarly, in the Clinical Trial area of India, responding to a PIL, the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee also had indicted the drug regulator. The Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

2. Accelerating credibility erosion due to high patented drugs pricing:

On this subject, another March 2014 report brings to the fore the problems associated with access to affordable newer medicines, which goes far beyond India, covering even the wealthiest economies of the world.

The report re-emphasizes that the monthly costs of many cancer drugs now exceed US$ 10,000 to even US$ 30,000. Recently Gilead Sciences fixed the price of a breakthrough drug for hepatitis C at US$ 84,000 for a 12- week treatment, inviting the wrath of many, across the world.

Why is the drug price so important?

The issue of pricing of patented drugs is now a cause of concern even in the developed countries of the world, though the subject is more critical in India. According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting Group, drugs are the biggest component of expenditure in the total Out Of Pocket (OOP) spend on healthcare, as follows:

Items	Outpatient/Outside Hospital (%)	Inpatient/Hospitalization (%)
Medicines	63	43
Consultation/Surgery	-	23
Diagnostics	17	16
Minor surgeries	01	-
Private Consultation	14	-
Room Charge	-	14
Others	05	04

Probably for the same reason, recently German legislators have reportedly voted to continue until the end of 2017 the price freeze on reimbursed drugs, which was introduced in August 2010 and originally set to expire at end of 2013.

However in India, only some sporadic measures, like the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) for essential drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM 2011), that covers just around 18 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market, have been taken. On top of this, unlike many other countries, there is no negotiation on price fixation for high cost patented drugs.

If caught, insignificant fine as compared to total profit accrued, has no impact:

Many stakeholders, therefore, question the business practices of especially those players who get exposed, as they are caught and fined by the judiciary and the regulatory authorities.

Do such companies prioritize high profits ahead of patients’ lives, creating a situation for only those with deep pockets or a good health insurance cover to have access to the patented medicines, and the rest of the world goes without?

It is also no surprise that highly secretive and well hyped so called “Patient Access Programs” of many of these companies, are considered by many no more than a sham and a façade to justify the high prices.

3. Accelerating credibility erosion due to unreasonable IP related demands:

Despite some well-justified measures taken by countries like, India in the IP area, the US and to a great extent extent Europe and Japan, continuously pressured by the powerful pharma lobby groups, are still pushing hard to broaden the IP protections around the globe through various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). At the same time, Big Pharma lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel various governments to enact IP laws, which would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of Big Pharma.

Conclusion:

In the midst of all these, patients are indeed caught in a precarious situation, sandwiched between unethical practices of many large pharma players and very high prices of the available life saving patented medicines, beyond the reach of majority of the global population.

That said, accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and the Big Pharma in particular could possibly lead to a stage, where it will indeed be challenging for them to win hearts and minds of the stakeholders without vulgar display or surreptitious use of the money power.

To avoid all these, saner voices that are now being heard within the Big Pharma constituents should hopefully prevail, creating a win-win situation for all, not by using fear of sanctions as the key in various interactions, not even raising the so called ‘trump card of innovation’ at the drop of a hat and definitely by jettisoning long nurtured repulsive arrogance together with much reported skulduggery, for patients’ sake.

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.

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on October 28, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
Patented products’ pricing rationale,
Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example, the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

Comparing them to a placebo
Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.

These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.

These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.

These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India.

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year.

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1	US Chamber of Commerce	136.3
2	National Association of Realtors	41.5
3	Blue Cross / Blue Shield	22.5
4	General Electric	21.1
5	American Hospital Association	19.2
6	National Cable & Telecom. Association	18.9
7	Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)	18.5
8	Google	18.2
9	Northrop Grumman	17.5
10	AT&T	17.4
11	American Medical Association	16.5
12	Boeing	15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

Intellectual Property (IP)
Patent
Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe:

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

	Company	Amount US$ Million	Year	Reasons
1.	GlaxoSmithKline	3, 000	2012	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2.	Abbott	1,500	2012	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3.	Johnson & Johnson	1,200	2012	Unlawful promotion
4.	Merck	950	2011	Unlawful promotion
5.	Ranbaxy	500	2012	Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6.	Johnson & Johnson	327	2011	Unlawful promotion
7.	Boehringer Ingelheim	280	2011	Overcharging government health programs
8.	Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit	280	2010	Overcharging government health programs
9.	Elan	203	2010	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10.	Johnson & Johnson	158	2012	Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest,

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

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.

“Fire in The Blood”: A Ghastly Patents Vs Patients War – for Pricing Freedom?

Posted on October 7, 2013 by Tapan Ray

International award winning documentary film, ‘FIRE IN THE BLOOD’ could possibly set a raging fire in your blood too, just like mine. It made me SAD, REFLECTIVE and ANGRY, prompting to share ‘MY TAKE AWAYS’ with you on this contentious subject, immediately after I put across a brief perspective of this yet to be released film in India.

FIRE IN THE BLOOD is an intricate tale of ‘medicine, monopoly and malice’ and narrates how western pharmaceutical companies and governments aggressively blocked access to low-cost HIV/AIDS drugs in African countries post 1996, causing ten million or more avoidable deaths. Fortunately, in the midst of further disasters in the making, some brave-hearts decided to fight back.

The film includes contributions from global icons, such as, Bill Clinton, Desmond Tutu and Joseph Stieglitz and makes it clear that the real struggle of majority, out of over 7 billion global population, for access to life-saving affordable patented medicines is far from over. This film has been made by Dylan Mohan Gray and narrated by Academy Award winner, William Hurt.

Two trailers worth watching:

Please do not miss watching, at least, the trailer of this the sad and cruel movie by clicking on the link provided on the word ‘trailer’ above and also here. To get an independent perspective, please do watch the review of the film along with interesting interviews by clicking here.

(Disclaimer: I have no personal direct or even remotely indirect interest or involvement with this film.)

International newspaper reviews:

The NYT in its review commented as follows:

“The only reason we are dying is because we are poor.” That is the heartbreaking refrain heard twice in the documentary “Fire in the Blood,” about an urgent and shameful topic: the millions of Africans with AIDS who have died because they couldn’t afford the antiretroviral drugs that could have saved their lives. Former President Bill Clinton, the intellectual property lawyer James Love, the journalist Donald G. McNeil Jr. of The New York Times and others offer perspectives on this situation and also on the concern that pharmaceutical companies value profits over lives.”

The Guardian reviewed the film as follows:

“A slightly dry, yet solid reportage on a humanitarian disgrace: the failure of western pharmaceutical companies to provide affordable drugs to patients in the developing world. As presented, the corporate defense sounds horribly racist: that poorer Africans’ inability to read packaging or tell the time leaves them ill-suited to following any medication program… hope emerges in the form of the Indian physicist Yusuf Hamied, whose company Cipla undertook in the noughties to produce cheap, generic drugs in defiance of the Pfizer patent lawyers.”

MY TAKE AWAYS:

Discrimination between human lives?

Life, as we all have been experiencing, is the greatest miracle of the universe and most astonishing creation of the Almighty. Among all types of lives, the human lives indeed have been playing critical roles in the development and progress of humanity over many centuries. These lives irrespective of their financial status, cast, creed, color and other inequities need to be protected against diseases by all concerned and medicines help achieving this objective.

What’s the purpose of inventing medicines?

“The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer”, said the management guru of global repute, Peter F. Drucker. What is then the purpose of inventing new medicines in today’s world of growing financial inequity?

Further, in his well acclaimed book, “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits”, C.K. Prahalad, explained that the world’s over five billion poor make up the the fastest growing market in the world. Prahalad showed how this segment has vast untapped buying power, and represents an enormous potential for companies, who can learn how to serve this market by providing the poor with innovative products that they need. Do the Big Pharma players have any lesson to learn from this doctrine?

R&D is not free, has costs attached to it:

Medicines protect human lives against various types of diseases. Pharmaceutical companies surely play a critical role in this area, especially the innovator pharma players, by making such medicines available to patients.

These companies identify new products largely from academic institutions and various research labs, develop and bring them to the market. This has obviously a cost attached to it. Thus, R&D cannot be considered as free and the prices of patented products should not be equated with off-patent generic drugs. Innovators must be allowed to earn a decent return on their R&D investments to keep the process of innovation ongoing, though the details of such costs are not usually made available for scrutiny by the experts in this field.

Discourage insatiable fetish for profiteering:

Respective governments must always keep a careful vigil to ensure that earning a decent profit does not transgress into a limitless fetish for profiteering, where majority of people across the world will have no other alternative but to succumb to diseases without having access to these innovative medicines. This situation is unfair, unjust and should not be allowed to continue.

Big Pharma – strongest propagators of innovation…bizarre?

It is indeed intriguing, when patients are the biggest beneficiaries of pharmaceutical innovations, why mostly the Big Pharma MNCs, their self-created bodies and cronies, continue to remain the most powerful votaries of most stringent IPR regime in a country, though always in the garb of ‘encouraging and protecting innovation’.

Thinking straight, who do they consider are really against innovation in India? None, in fact. Not even the Government. India has under its belt the credit of many pioneering innovations over the past centuries, may not be too many in the field of medicine post 2005, at least, not just yet. Do we remember the disruptive invention of ‘Zero’ by the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (597–668 AD) or the amazing ‘Dabbawalas’ of Mumbai? India experiences innovation daily, it has now started happening in the domestic pharma world too with the market launch of two new home grown inventions.

Coming back to the context, India, as I understand, has always been pro-innovation, in principle at least, but is squarely and fairly against obscene drug pricing, which denies access to especially newer drugs to majority of patients, in many occasions even resorting to frivolous innovations and evergreening of patents.

Mighty pharma MNCs are increasingly feeling uncomfortable with such strong stands being taken by a developing nation like India, in this regard. Thus, expensive and well orchestrated intense lobbying initiatives are being strategized to project India as an anti-innovation entity, while pharma MNCs, in general, are being highlighted as the sole savior for encouraging and protecting innovation in India. The whole concept is indeed bizarre, if not an open display of shallow and too much of self-serving mindset.

This analysis appears more convincing, when genuine patients’ groups, instead of supporting the pharma MNCs in their so called ‘crusade’ for ‘innovation’, keep on vehemently protesting against obscene drug pricing, across the world.

Obscene pricing overshadows the ‘patient centric’ facade:

Obscene pricing of patented medicines, in many cases, overshadows the façade of much hyped and overused argument that ‘innovation must be encouraged and protected for patients’ interest’. This self-created ‘patient centric’ facade must now be properly understood by all.

I reckon, India has now assumed a critical mass attaining a global stature. This will not allow any successive governments in the country to change the relevant laws of the land, wilting under intense pressure of global and local lobbying and expensive PR campaigns.

Genuine innovation must be protected:

Genuine innovations, as explained in the Patents Act of India, must be encouraged and protected in the country, but not without sending a strong and clear signal for the need of responsible pricing.

It is also a fact, though some people may have different views, that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) encourage innovation.

At the same time, the real cost of R&D must be made transparent by all innovators and available for scrutiny by the experts in this field to put all doubts to rest on the subject.

When Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is being widely discussed globally, which has now been made mandatory in India, these players keep arguing almost unequivocally that, thinking about ‘have nots’ is the sole responsibility of the Government.

Patents guarantee market exclusivity, NOT absolute pricing freedom:

Patent gives right to the innovators for 20 years market exclusivity, but NOT absolute pricing freedom in the absence of any significant market competition in that area.

Innovator companies do argue that patented products also compete in their respective therapeutic classes. This is indeed baloney. If patented products meet the unmet needs, how can it be ‘me too’ even in a therapy class? Unless of course, insatiated fetish of Big Pharma for market monopoly with free pricing even for ‘me too’ types of so called ‘innovative products’, becomes the key motive behind such an argument.

Who benefits more with patented medicines?

Who gets benefited more with these patented medicines? Certainly a small minority living in the developed world and NOT the vast majority of the developing world.

At the same time, huge profits earned by these companies from a small minority of these patients make them so rich and inexplicably arrogant that they do not bother at all for others without having adequate deep pockets, even in India.

Conclusion:

I have a huge problem in accepting the pharma MNCs’ argument that ‘IPR’ and lack of ‘Access’ to IP protected drugs for ‘affordability’ reasons, are unrelated to each other. For heaven’s sake, how can they be?

As I said before, absolute pricing freedom for patented drugs is obscene, if not vulgar and must be curbed forthwith with the application of intelligent and well-balanced sensible minds and also in a way, which is just for all, both the innovators and the patients.

Big pharma MNCs can no longer afford to remain just as huge profit making entities, responsible only to their shareholders, shorn of societal needs for affordable medicines, required for around six out of over seven billion human lives of the world.

Modern society, key opinion leaders and respective governments should not allow them to shirk their responsibility in this area any more, as we move on.

If not, will narratives like ‘FIRE IN THE BLOOD’, not keep us haunting again, again and again, on similar incidents taking place in some other countries, at some other time, involving extinction of millions of precious lives for not having access to affordable new drugs? They may be ‘have nots’, so what?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

The core principle of healthcare reform in China:

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

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

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

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

Highly lucrative healthcare business destination:

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

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

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

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

Pharma MNCs growing bigger, outpacing local industry:

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

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

Chinese Government woke-up:

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

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

Violations meted with harsh measures:

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

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

Pharma MNCs targeted for alleged corrupt practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clampdown on government spending:

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

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

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

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

Crackdown on bribery and kickbacks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happening elsewhere too:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

Thus, the key question emerges:

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Pressure from the emerging markets on pricing of patented products is mounting fast. This time the country involved is China.

Recently, the Health Minister of China who stepped down last month after a seven-year stint in the top health job reportedly commented that western drugmakers will require to give hefty subsidies and forgo significant amount of profit on expensive cancer drugs, if they want access to huge market of China. He further voiced as follows:

“If the cost (of patented drugs) is too high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit. If we can arrange an appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market.”

‘Glivec deal’ in China:

In the same report, it was indicated that in China Novartis ultimately agreed to donate three doses of its leukemia drug Glivec for every one sold to the government.

It is expected that many more such deals will take place in China.

The situation to get more challenging in the emerging markets:

Many experts believe that due to high cost of patented drugs, especially biologics, negotiating hefty discounts with the Governments may be the best alternative for the innovator companies to avoid any possibilities of Compulsory Licensing (CL), like what happened to Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar in India.

An opportunity in biosimilar drugs:

Biologic drugs came to the international market slightly more than three decades ago, in 1980s. Growing at a scorching pace, the value turnover of these products exceeded US$ 138 billion in 2010 (IMS Health).

Launch of biologics like, Recombinant Insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Alteplase, Erythropoietin (EPOs), Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) and Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) kept fueling the market growth further.

Patent expiry of a number of biologic drugs over a period of next five years, especially in areas like, various types of cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, besides many others, will help opening a huge window of opportunity for the global biosimilar players, including from India, to reap a rich harvest.

Global innovators joining the bandwagon:

After a dream-run with high priced patented drugs for a reasonably long time, now stung by the current reality in various developed and emerging markets and factoring-in the width/depth/robustness of their own research pipeline, many global players have started taking a hard look at the emerging opportunities offered by biosimilar drugs.

Moreover, high price of original biologic drugs, cost containment pressure by various Governments, encouragement of generic prescriptions, large number of such drugs going off patent and growing demand of their low cost alternatives across the world, are making biosimilar market more and more lucrative from the global business perspective to all interested players, including from India.

According to Bloomberg Industries (2013), during the next six years biologic drugs with a total annual sales turnover of US$ 47 billion in 2012, will go off patent.

Sniffing opportunities for business growth, as stated above, many hard-nosed large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, currently fighting a challenging battle also in the ground of a tougher ‘patent cliff’, have started venturing into the biosimilar market, that too in a mega scale.

Some of them have already initiated developing biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologics, as reported below:

Originator	Product	Indication	Biosimilar development by:
Roche/Genentech	Rituxan	Rheumatoid arthritis	Boehringer Ingelheim
Roche/Genentech	Herceptin, Rituxan	Breast Cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis	Pfizer
Roche/Genentech	Rituxan	Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma	Novartis
Johnson & Johnson	Remicade	Rheumatoid arthritis	Hospira

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Thus, I reckon, continuous quest for development of cost-effective alternatives to high-priced biologic medicines would keep on propelling the growth of biosimilar drugs, across the world.

Glivec maker Novartis fought a court battle to launch the first ‘Biosimilar drug’ in America:

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘biosimilar drug’-Omnitrope of Sandoz, the generic arm of the Glivec maker Novartis, following a Court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone Genotropin. Interestingly, Novartis had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

More interestingly, having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz (Novartis) had then commented as follows:

“The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like, Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Biosimilar market started shaping-up:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs, are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are examples of some biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players as the market started developing:

Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen.

Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.

Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.

Some leading global innovator biotech companies also like, Biogen Idec and Amgen have reportedly been mulling entry into biosimilar market.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, in the years ahead.

Why is still so low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs?

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of the respective biologics would not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

Now with the entry of global pharma majors, the biosimilar market is expected to get further heated up and develop at a much faster pace with artificial barriers created by vested interests, if any, being removed.

Recent removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US will indeed be the key growth driver.

Other growth drivers:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., besides recent establishment of the above regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US, the key growth drivers for global biosimilar market, will be as follows:

▪ Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs

▪ Cost containment measures of various governments

▪ Aging population

▪ Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries

The business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011).

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), besides others.

DRL is the largest biosimilar player in India with an impressive product portfolio. Reditux of DRL is the world’s first Biosimilar monoclonal antibody, which is a copy version of Mabthera/ Rituxan of Roche and costs almost 50 percent less than the original brands.

Some of the Biosimilar products of the Indian Companies are as follows:

Indian Company	Biosimilar Product
Dr Reddy’s Lab	Grafeel, Reditux, Cresp
Intas	Neukine, Neupeg, Intalfa, Epofit
Shantha Biotech/Merieux Alliance	Shanferon,Shankinase,Shanpoietin
Reliance Life Sciences	ReliPoietin, ReliGrast, ReliFeron, MIRel
Wockhardt	Wepox, Wosulin
Biocon	Eripro, Biomab, Nufil, Myokinase, Insugen

(Source: Stellarix Consultancy Services)

The cost of development of Biosimilars in India is around US$ 10-20 million, which is expected to go up, as “Biosimilar Guidelines” are now in place for marketing approval of such products in India.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU, either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players making rapid strides:

As stated above, biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. It also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India.

Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product soon from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested around US$ 60 million in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by 2013.

Another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which, will reportedly be launched in India by 2013.

The global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health report, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion. The report also states that this market has the potential to be the single fastest-growing biologics sector in the next five years.

Cost of biosimilar development in the developed markets:

The process of developing a biosimilar drug is complex and requires significantly more investment, technical capabilities and clinical trial expertise than any small molecule generic drug. As per industry sources, average product developmental cost ranges between US$ 100 and 250 million in the developed markets, which is several times higher than the same associated with development of small molecule generics, ranging around US$ 1to 4 million.

All these factors create a significant market entry barrier for many smaller players with similar intent but less than adequate wherewithal.

Even higher market entry barrier with ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

Negotiating the entry barriers:

As stated above, the barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, in general, are much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead-time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand different type of skill sets, especially for the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

The future potential:

According to an IMS Health study, the emerging markets will drive biosimilar market growth with significantly more number of patients. The report estimates that over a period of time US will emerge as the number one global biosimilars market.

By 2020, emerging markets and the US are expected to register a turnover of US$11 billion and US$ 25 billion representing a share of 4 percent to 10 percent of the total global biologics market, respectively.

The report estimates that overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market will reach up to 50 percent by 2020, assuming a price discount in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Is 12 years exclusivity in the US a significant entry barrier?

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the USFDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the USFDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

The key point to note here is, if the USFDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the ’12 year period’, the innovator companies will effectively get, at least, one additional year of exclusivity over and above the ’12 year period’, keeping applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ waiting for that longer.

Conclusion:

As stated above, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for such drugs, just as small molecule generic medicines.

With experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in the country. Now with significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and honed skill sets in the field of biologics, Indian biosimilar players are clearly poised to catapult themselves to even a higher growth trajectory, either on their own or with appropriate collaborative arrangements with the international partners.

Thus, the initiatives of joining the biosimilar bandwagon by the hard-nosed research based global players, I reckon, will ultimately get translated into a win-win advantage for India in the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical space of the world.

Besides, like what they had to do in China, working with the Government to put in place a robust and win-win mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ in India could augur well for the global players of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. This mechanism may also help putting forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive patented drugs in India.

With all these developments, patients will be the ultimate winners having much greater access to both innovative medicines and biosimilar drugs than what they have today, fetching a huge relief to all right thinking population in the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patented Drugs’ Pricing: Apprehensive Voices Could Turn into a Self-Defeating Prophecy

Posted on March 4, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

This committee was constituted way back in 2007 to suggest a system that could be used for price negotiation of patented medicines and medical devices ‘before their marketing approval in India’.

In that process, the Committee reportedly had 20 meetings in two rounds, where the viewpoints of the Pharmaceutical Industry including FICCI, NGOs and other stakeholders were taken into consideration.

Simultaneously, the Committee had commissioned a study at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur to ascertain various mechanisms of price control of Patented Drugs in many countries, across the world. The Committee reportedly has considered this ‘Expert Report’ while finalizing its final submission to the Government.

Scope of recommendations:

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

The Government procurement/reimbursement
Health Insurance Coverage by Insurance Companies

Issues to remain unresolved despite price negotiation:

In the report, the Committee expressed the following view:

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

The government should, therefore, extend Health Insurance Scheme covering all prescription medicines to all citizens of the country, who are not covered under any other insurance /reimbursement scheme.

Three categories of Patented Drugs identified:

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

1. A totally new class of drug with no therapeutic equivalence

2. A drug that has therapeutic equivalence but also has a therapeutic edge over the existing ones

3. A drug that has similar therapeutic effectiveness compared to the existing one

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

A bullish expectation of the Government on Patented Drugs market:

The report highlights that the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has currently registered a turnover exceeding US$ 21 billion with the domestic turnover of over US$ 12 billion.

The report also estimates that the total value turnover of patented medicines in India, which is currently at around US$ 5 million, is expected to grow at a brisk pace due to the following reasons:

Rapid up-gradation of patent infrastructure over the past few years to support new patent laws with the addition of patent examiners.

Decentralization of patent-filing process and digitization of records.

Increase of population in the highest income group from present 10 million to 25 million in next 5 years.

All these, presumably have prompted the Government to come out with a ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ mechanism in India.

Pricing Mechanism in China:

Just to get a flavor of what is happening in the fast growing neighboring market in this regard, let us have a quick look at China.

In 2007, China introduced, the ‘New Medical Insurance Policy’ covering 86 percent of the total rural population. However, the benefits have so far been assessed as modest. This is mainly because the patients continue to incur a large amount out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare.

There does exist a reimbursement mechanism for listed medicines in China and drug prices are regulated there with the ‘Cost Plus Formula’.

China has the following systems for drug price control:

Direct price control and competitive tendering

In this process the Government directly sets the price of every drug included in the formulary. Pharmaceutical companies will require making a price application to the government for individual drug price approval.The retail prices of the drugs are made based on the wholesale price plus a constant rate.

Interestingly, unlike Europe, the markup between the retail and wholesale price is much higher in China.

Apex body for ‘Patented Drugs Price Negotiation’:

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

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

Recommended pricing methodology:

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

For Medicines having no therapeutic equivalence in India:

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

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

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

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

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

2. For medicines having a therapeutic equivalent in India:

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

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

3. For medicines introduced first time in India itself:

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

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

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

Negotiated prices will be subjected to revision:

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

Strong voices of support and apprehension:

A. Support from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Interestingly there have emerged strong voices of support on this Government initiative from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, as follows:

Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) has commented, “This policy is in the right direction as we know that Compulsory License (CL) cannot address the need of price control for all patented drugs, so this policy takes care of that issue of a uniform regulation of price control for all patented drugs”. IPA had also suggested that the reference pricing should be from the developed countries like UK, Australia and New Zealand where the 80 percent of the expenditure being incurred on public health is borne and negotiated by the government.

Pharmexcil - another pharma association has commented, “This report is balanced and keeps India’s position in the global market in mind while recommending a pricing formula.”

Federation of Pharma Entrepreneurs (FOPE) & Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (CIPI) had submitted their written views to the Committee stating that FOPE supports price negotiation mechanism for Patented Drugs and strongly recommends that Compulsory License (CL) provisions should not get diluted while going for price negotiation.

Indian Drug Manufacturer Association (IDMA) supported price negotiation for all Patented Drugs and recommended that the issue of CL and price negotiation should be dealt separately.

However, the Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI) feels, as the report indicates, ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Products’ should be made only for Government purchases and not be linked with ‘Regulatory Approval’. They have already expressed their serious concern on the methodology of ‘Patented Products Pricing’, as detailed in the above report.

B. Apprehension within the Government

Even more interestingly, such apprehensive voices also pan around the Government Ministries.

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

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

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

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

C. Apprehension of other stakeholders

The NGOs like, “Lawyer’s Collective HIV/Aids Unit” and “Medicines Sans Frontiers (MSF)” reportedly have urged that the price negotiation should not be allowed to weaken the position of CL for the Patented Drugs.

They had mentioned to the Committee as follows:

“As regards the plea of the patent holder that they had spent a large sum on R&D, one should note that most of the funds for R&D come from the Governments of their respective countries”. They further stated, “when the cost of production of the patented drugs is not known, it would be impossible to negotiate the price in a proper manner.”

The DoP report states that the other members of the NGOs also seconded these views.

Conclusion:

Not so long ago, on January 12, 2013, one of the leading dailies of India first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

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

- Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

- Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia)

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

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

On the other hand, apprehensive voices as are now being expressed on this issue, just hoping for drastic measures of grant of frequent CL by the Government for improved patients’ access to innovative drugs, could well turn into a self-defeating prophecy – making patients the ultimate sufferers, yet again, as happens most of the time.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An El Dorado…But Not Without Responsible Pricing:The Cancer Segment in India

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The affordability issue for cancer treatment has been the subject of a raging debate since quite some time, as the incidence of cancer is fast increasing across the world. Just for example a very recent report highlighted that cancer has now become the greatest health risk in the UK, with an average British boy born in 2010 running a 44 percent chance of being diagnosed with any form of cancer during his lifetime. The risk for a baby girl is slightly lower at 40 percent.

In India too, the problem of affordable cancer treatment has now become the center piece of a fiercer public opinion in the healthcare space, more than even HIV, prompting the Government to intervene in this dreadful disease area and address the problem in a holistic way both in the short and also on a longer term basis. This demand is supported by rapidly growing number of cancer patients in the country.

Out of the total number of new cancer patients globally, India now reportedly ranks third as follows:

Rank	Country	% Of total
1.	China	22
2.	USA	11
3.	India	7.5

As a consequence, cancer now reportedly accounts for one of the main causes of deaths in India, which is nearly 19 percent higher than deaths caused by heart diseases.

Number of new cancer patients staggering in India:

Over 60,000 new cases are reportedly diagnosed every year in India and 80 percent of them are at an advanced stage, which involve mostly the middle-aged and elderly population of the country, where affordability is even a greater issue.

Cervical and breast cancers are reportedly the most common, contributing over 26 per cent to the total cancer cases in India, followed by lung, mouth, pharynx, ovarian, pancreatic and esophagus cancers.

Whereas cervical cancer is reportedly most common in females with a mortality rate of nearly 15 per 10,000 females, lung cancer has the highest mortality rate of 28 per 10,000 males.

Incidentally, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer even globally. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 90% of all lung cancers. The primary cause of lung cancer in up to 90% of patients is tobacco and represents one-fifth of all cancer-related deaths in India.

However, to address the havoc caused by this dreaded disease effectively, India will also need to bridge the huge gap of shortfall in disease diagnostic infrastructure in the country.

The humongous access gap for cancer patients needs to be effectively addressed by the Government sooner with Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) for diagnosis and treatment, in tandem with other proactive initiatives like, disease awareness campaigns targeted to ensure greater screening and disease prevention, wherever possible.

‘The Lancet’ finding:

Following are some of the important findings on cancer disease profile in India, as reported in May 12, 2012, edition of ‘The Lancet’:

- 6 percent of the study deaths were due to cancer

- 71 percent cancer deaths occurred in people aged 30—69 years

- Age-standardized cancer mortality rates per 100,000 were similar in rural and urban areas but varied greatly between the states, and were two times higher in the least educated than in the most educated adults.

This report further calls for immediate Government intervention in this area.

Growing patients number making ‘Oncology Market’ increasingly attractive:

As stated above, incidence of various types of cancer is rapidly increasing across the world, making oncology segment an ‘El Dorado’ for many pharmaceutical players prompting commensurate investments for product development in this area, be these are new molecules or biosimilars.

Thus, the global turnover of anti-cancer drugs, which was around US$ 50 billion in 2009, is expected to grow to US$ 75 billion in 2013 registering a jaw dropping growth rate in today’s turbulent global pharmaceutical market environment.

World Health Organization (WHO) has predicted over 20 million new cases of cancer in 2025 against 12 million in 2008.

Globally, the segment growth will mainly be driven by early detection, longer duration of treatment and the global ascending trend in the incidence and prevalence of cancer propelled by new treatments and improved access to cancer therapies in many countries.

Indian business landscape:

Oncology segment has now emerged as a leading therapeutic area in the Indian pharmaceuticals market too, being fourth largest in volume and tenth largest in value term, mainly driven by lower priced generic equivalents in volume term.

Despite only a smaller number of patients can afford any comprehensive cancer treatment protocol in India, the demand for cancer drugs in the country, where many drug companies follow various types of unconventional logistics systems to reach these drugs to patients, is increasing at a rapid pace.

Global players namely, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK and Merck reportedly dominate the market with innovative drugs. Whereas, domestic companies like, Natco Pharma, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Lab (DRL), Biocon and others are now coming up with low price generic equivalents of many cancer drugs.

The fact that currently over 30 pharmaceutical companies market cancer drug in the country, demonstrates growing attractiveness of the Oncology segment in India.

Access to newer cancer drugs:

It has been widely reported that newer cancer therapies have significant advantages over available generic cancer drugs both in terms of survival rate and toxicity.

Unfortunately such types of drugs cost very high, severely limiting access to their therapeutic benefits for majority of patients. For a month’s treatment such drugs reportedly cost on an average US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh to each patient in India.

More R&D investments in Oncology segment:

Another study recently published by ‘Citeline’ in its ‘Pharma R&D Annual Review 2012’ points out, more than half of the top 25 disease areas targeted for R&D falls under cancer therapy. Breast cancer comes out as the single most targeted disease followed by Type 2 diabetes.

This will ensure steady growth of the Oncology segment over a long period of time and simultaneously the issue of access to these medicines to a large number of patients, if the product pricing does not fall in line with socioeconomic considerations of India.

Cancer drug sales dominated in 2012:

It is interesting to note that around one-third of the ‘Top 10 Brands in 2012′ were for the treatment of cancer as follows:

Top 10 global brands in 2012

Rank	Brand	Therapy Area	Company	Sales: (US$ bn)
1.	Humira	Rheumatoid Arthritis and others	Abbott /Eisai (now AbbVie/Eisai)	9.48
2.	Enbrel	Anti-inflammatory	Amgen/Pfizer/Takeda	8.37
3.	Advair/Seretide	Asthma, COPD	GlaxoSmithKline	8.0
4.	Remicade	Auto-immune	Johnson & Johnson/Merck/ Mitsubishi Tanabe	7.67
5.	Rituxan	Anti-cancer	Roche	6.94
6.	Crestor	Anti-lipid	AstraZeneca/ Shionogi	6.65
7.	Lantus	Anti-diabetic	Sanofi	6.12
8.	Herceptin	Anti-cancer	Roche	6.08
9.	Avastin	Anti-cancer	Roche	5.98
10.	Lipitor	Anti-lipid	Pfizer/Astellas Pharma/Jeil Pharmaceutical	5.55

(Source: Fierce Pharma)

Responsible Pricing a key issue with cancer drugs:

In the battle against the much dreaded disease cancer, the newer innovative drugs being quite expensive, even in the developed markets the healthcare providers are feeling the heat of cost pressure of such medications, which in turn could adversely impact the treatment decisions for the patients.

Thus, to help the oncologists to appropriately discuss the treatment cost of anti-cancer drugs with the patients, the ‘American Society of Clinical Oncology’ recently has formed a task force who will also try to resolve this critical issue.

In many other developed markets of the world, for expensive cancer medications, the patients are required to bear the high cost of co-payment. This may run equivalent to thousands of U.S dollars, which many patients reportedly find difficult to arrange.

It has been reported that even the ‘National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK’ considers some anti-cancer drugs not cost-effective enough for inclusion in the NHS formulary, sparking another set of raging debate.

‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ in one of its recent articles with detail analysis, also expressed its concern over sharp increase in the price of anti-cancer medications, specifically.

An interesting approach:

Experts are now deliberating upon the possibility of creating a ‘comparative effectiveness center’ for anti-cancer drugs. This center will be entrusted with the responsibility to find out the most cost effective and best suited anti-cancer drugs that will be suitable for a particular patient, eliminating possibility of any wasteful expenses with the new drugs just for newness and some additional features. If several drugs are found to be working equally well on the same patient, most cost effective medication will be recommended to the particular individual.

India should also explore this possibility without further delay.

Indian Government trying to find an answer in CL/NLEM/NPPP 2012:

Going by the recent developments in Compulsory License (CL) area for high priced new and innovative cancer drugs, it appears that in the times to come exorbitant prices for cancer drugs may prove to be loaded with risks of grant of CL in India due to immense public pressure.

It appears from the grapevine that Government may also explore the possibility to include some of the newer cancer drugs under National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) bringing them under price control in conformance with the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012), if not through the provision of pricing of patented drugs.

Thus responsible pricing of cancer drugs assumes huge importance for avoidance of the above unpleasant situation in India.

Cancer drug pricing related developments in India:

As stated above, cancer being the second largest killer in India and the patented cancer drugs being generally expensive, a large Indian pharmaceutical player has been reportedly insisting on the government to allow widespread use of “compulsory licenses” for cancer drugs. About 11 years ago various news reports highlighted that this company broke ‘monopoly ‘ of the multinationals by offering to supply life-saving triple therapy AIDS drug cocktails for under US$1 a day, which is about one-thirtieth the price of the global companies.

In May 2012, this same Indian company named Cipla, significantly reduced the cost of three medicines to fight brain, kidney and lung cancers in India, making these drugs around four times cheaper than the originators, as per the above news report. The company reportedly wants to reduce the prices of more cancer drugs in future.

Prompted by the above steps taken by Dr. Yusuf Hamied, the Chairman of Cipla, many global players have reportedly branded him as an Intellectual Property (IP) thief, while Dr. Hamied reportedly accused them of being “Global Serial Killers” whose high prices are costing many precious lives across the globe.

In the same interview Dr. Hamied said poverty-racked India “can’t afford to divide people into those who can afford life-saving drugs and those who can’t”.

Promising future potential for low cost newer generic cancer drugs:  

While R&D initiatives are going on full throttle for newer and innovative drugs for cancer, interestingly over a quarter of the following 15 brands, which will go off-patent in 2013 are for cancer, throwing open the door for cheaper newer generics entry and increasing access to these medicine for a larger population of cancer patients.

Patent expiry in 2013

Rank	Brand	Generic name	Therapy Area	Company	Patent Expiry	Sales US$ billion (2012)
1.	Cymbalta	Duloxetine	Antidepressant, musculoskeletal pain	Eli Lilly/Shionogi	Dec 11	4.9
2.	Avonex	Interferon beta1a	Multiple Sclerosis (MS)	Biogen Idec	Dec 31	2.9
3.	Humalog	Insulin lispro	Anti-diabetic	Eli Lilly	May 7	2,52
4.	OxyContin	Oxycodone	Pain	Perdue	August 31,	2.35
5.	Rebif	Interferon beta-1a	Multiple Sclerosis (MS)	Merck KgaA	Dec 31	2.3
6.	Aciphex	Rabeprazole	Acid-peptic disorder	J&J, Eisai	May 8	1.93
7.	Xeloda	Capecitabin	Cancer	Roche	Dec 14	1.63
8.	Procrit	Epoetin Alfa	Anemia	J&J	Aug 29	1.41
9.	Neupogen	Filgrastim	Cancer	Amgen, Kirin, Roche, Royalty Pharma	Dec 12	1.29
10.	Zometa	Zoledronic Acid	Cancer	Novartis	March 2	1.26
11.	Lidoderm	Lidocaine patch 5%	Pain-relieving patch	Endo Health Solutions/ EpiCept	Sep 15	0.918
12.	Temodar	Temozolomide	Cancer	Merck, Bayer	Aug 31	0.882
13.	Asacol	Mesalamine	Ulcerative Colitis	Warner Chilcott, UCB, Zeria Pharma	Jul 30	0.891
14.	Niaspan	Niacin	Anti-lipid	Abbott, Teva	Sep 20	0.835
15	Reclast	Zoledronic acid injection	Osteoporosis	Novartis	March 02	0.612

(Source: Fierce Pharma)

A thought:

Initiatives for faster resolution of a pressing issue like providing affordable treatment for cancer should not be put in the back burner of a longer term planning process. The issue is very real, humanitarian, here and now, for all of us. The Government is expected to display some sense of urgency through its expeditious intervention in all the four of the following treatment processes for cancer to make them affordable, if not free for the general population:

Medical intervention and consultation
Diagnostic tests and detection
Surgical procedure and hospitalization
Medicines and chemotherapy

As ‘The Lancet” study mentions, cancer in India is all-pervasive. It has no rich or poor, urban or rural or even any gender bias. It needs to be addressed in a holistic way for the benefit of all.

Conclusion:

High incidence of cancer in India with even higher mortality rate, coupled with very high treatment cost has positioned this disease area in the eye of a stormy debate for quite some time. The naked fact that a large number of Indian population cannot afford the high treatment cost for cancer as ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure, has made the issue even more sensitive and socially relevant in India.

Pricing issue for cancer drugs is not just India centric. Even in the developed countries, heated debate on expensive new drugs, especially, in the oncology segment is brewing up for a while. This could possibly assume a much larger proportion in not too distant future.

It is about time for also the private players to come forward and extend support to the Government in a joint endeavor to tame the destructibility and catastrophic effect of this dreaded disease on human lives, families and the society in general. Setting access improving tangible examples through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, rather than mere pontification of any kind, is the need of the hour.

If it does not happen, soon enough, willy-nilly the concerned players in this area may get caught in a much fiercer debate, possibly with a force multiplier effect, inviting more desperate measures by the Government.

Responsible pricing, for the patients’ sake, of each element of the cancer treatment process will ultimately assume a critical importance, not just for survival and progress of any business, but also to fetch pots of gold, as business return, from the ‘El Dorado’ of ‘Oncology Segment’ of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

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

- Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

- Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia).

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

CL through a different route:

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

- National emergency

- Cases of extreme urgency

- Public non-commercial use

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

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

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

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

Incongruent with the New Drug Policy 2012:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skewed healthcare distribution in India:

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

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

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Huge healthcare Infrastructural Deficiencies:

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

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

(Source: WHO, World Health Statistics 2012)

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Shortages in other healthcare professionals:

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

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

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

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

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

Not many CL granted between 1995-2012:

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

The details are as follows:

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

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

An interesting paper:

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

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

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

Right pricing of patented drugs is critical:

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

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

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

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

An evolving global trend:

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

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

An innovative approach to address patented products’ pricing:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Pricing

Is Credibility Erosion of Pharma Accelerating?

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

“Fire in The Blood”: A Ghastly Patents Vs Patients War – for Pricing Freedom?

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

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Patented Drugs’ Pricing: Apprehensive Voices Could Turn into a Self-Defeating Prophecy

An El Dorado…But Not Without Responsible Pricing:The Cancer Segment in India

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India