Tag Archives: rate

MDGs Break Ground For SDGs: Is India Poised To Achieve The Health Goals?

Posted on by
Reply

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were placed in the pages of history amid several other remarkable global initiatives of the United Nations (UN), as the timeframe for achievement of these targets got over in 2015.

In 2000, the leaders of 189 countries signed this historic millennium declaration at the United Nations Millennium Summit for improving the lives of the world’s poorest people. Eight MDGs, were agreed upon by its members, each one supported by 21 specific, measurable targets and more than 60 indicators with clear deadlines, as a concerted global movement in this direction. The eight goals spanned across the areas of poverty alleviation, providing universal primary education, ensuring gender equality, preventing child mortality, meeting maternal health needs, protecting the environment and entering various global partnerships, with a target achievement date of 2015.

Did the glass remain ‘half-full’ or ‘half-empty’?

At the end of 2015 the UN reportedly called the MDGs ‘the most successful anti-poverty movement in history’. However, it could probably be a matter of looking at this glass either as ‘half-full’ or ‘half-empty’.

An interesting article published in the international daily ‘The Guardian’ on July 06, 2015, highlighted some hits and misses of MDGs from the global perspective.

Globally, several goals of the MDGs have not been made for various reasons. Focusing on health-related areas, I find, though the child mortality rate has reduced by more than half over the past two and a half decades from 90 to 43 deaths per 1,000 live births, its MDG target of an expected decline by two thirds could not be achieved.  Similarly, the global maternal mortality ratio despite falling by nearly half, was far short of its aim of a two-thirds reduction. Likewise, despite the reduction of the number of new HIV infections by around 40 percent between 2000 and 2013, its MDG goal of halting and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV/Aids by 2015 has not been met.

The overall status in India:

According to the United Nations in India, in the above focus areas, the country has made some progress in reducing its under-five mortality rate, which declined from 125 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 49 per 1,000 live births in 2013; maternal mortality rate also declined from 437 per 100,000 live births in 1990-91 to 167 in 2009.

India recorded significant progress in reducing the prevalence of HIV and AIDS across different types of high-risk categories, with adult prevalence reducing from 0.45 percent in 2002 to 0.27 percent in 2011. However, a quarter of global TB cases still occur in India with nearly 2.2 million people are diagnosed with the disease annually, and an estimated 220,000 die as a result.

MDGs and India’s achievements:

Coming now to target versus achievements, the Millennium Development Goals India Country Report 2015 released by the Ministry of Statistics & Program Implementation (MoSPI) in February 2015, states that India had put considerable emphasis on all the MDGs with significant progress. Although the nation could meet targets of some of these well ahead of the 2015 deadline, overall, only six of the 18 targets adopted as part of the eight goals in 2000 have been fully met. However, according to another report brought out by the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, India has met only four of the eight MDGs.

As per Sample Registration System 2013, though the overall reduction of Under 5 Child Mortality Rate (U5MR) was nearly 60 percent happened during 1990 to 2013, India had missed this target.

Similar were the performances for a reduction in the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and the proportion of one year old children immunized against measles and improving the Maternal Morality Ratio (MMR). However, the prevalence of HIV among pregnant women aged 15-24 years showed a declining trend and incidence of Malaria also came down. Thus, it appears that the progress made and the achievements recorded in India against MDG targets are indeed a mixed bag.

The same question, therefore, logically follows for India too: Has the glass become ‘half-full’, or remained half-empty post MDG efforts?

MDGs break ground for ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’:

The MDGs comprising of eight goals to eradicate extreme poverty, were indeed a laudable concerted global initiative of the United Nations. It could reportedly bring over a billion people out of extreme poverty. According to ‘United Nations (2015): The Millennium Development Goals Report’, during the period of 1990 to 2015, extreme poverty fell in developing countries from 47 to 14 percent. Similarly, the proportion of undernourished people fell by almost half, with almost similar decline in the child and maternal mortality rate. Nevertheless, communicable diseases, gender/income inequalities and striking disparities between rural and urban areas continued to persist with the world’s poor remaining overwhelmingly concentrated in several areas.

Thus, learning valuable lessons and significantly benefitting from them, MDGs broke ground for the next logical global initiative in this genre. As the time-frame for implementation of MDGs got over in 2015, the global leaders on the same platform of the United Nations followed it through with the newly developed ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’ in the same year.

While aiming to make the outcomes of the new drive more sustainable with a focus on the environmental goals, SDGs did not altogether jettison some of the unfinished agenda of MDGs – mainly for continuity. Unlike MDGs, SDGs are targeted primarily to the developing, least developed and poorest countries. Nevertheless, all member countries of the UN require participating, fund and actively contribute in achieving SDGs targets, no matter how developed they are.

While MDGs had only 8 goals, 21 targets and 63 indicators, SDGs are a set of 17 goals and 169 targets that all 193 UN Member States, including India have committed to achieve between 2016 and 2030. Importantly, though MDG targets were adopted in 2002 and got over in 2015, its effective time span for achievement was of 25 years, as the baseline data used were for the year 1990 with some subsequent revisions. Whereas the baseline for SDGs starts from 2015 estimates, which may be revised to actual figures as and when these are made available.

Health goals in SDG:

Health has a central place in SDG 3 to ‘ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, of all ages’. Briefly speaking, it commits itself to a global effort to eradicate epidemics of both communicable and non-communicable disease and strengthen health systems’ capacity, ensuring Universal Health Coverage (UHC), along with making medicines and vaccines affordable to all. In addition, SDG 3 clearly focuses on mental health issues with suicide being the second leading cause of death globally between the ages of 19 to 25. It also aims at reducing the numbers of deaths and illnesses caused by air, water, and soil pollution and contamination, significantly.

Towards further enhancing public policy efforts, SDG 3 emphasizes on strengthening the implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; supporting the research and development of vaccines and medicines; substantially increasing health financing; the recruitment, development, training, and retention of the health workforce; and strengthen early warning, risk reduction, and management of health risks. Besides, a few targets falling under other different goals are also linked to the health goal of SDG 3, in various ways.

SDG 3 targets:

According to the ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015’ on ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, SDG 3 lays down nine key targets, as follows, though a few of which overlap with the MDGs:

  • Reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to below 70/100,000.
  • Reduce neonatal mortality to below 12/1,000 and U5MR to below 25/1,000.
  • End the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, waterborne diseases, and other communicable diseases.
  • Reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases.
  • Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
  • Halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents (by 2020).
  • Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services.
  • Achieve universal health coverage.
  • Reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.

Is India poised for it now?

This is indeed a critical question. I guess, no one can just yet vouch, with a great degree of certainty, what exactly would India ultimately achieve against the SDG 3 targets. That said, I reckon, India has now all its success ingredients in place. Let me deliberate on just a few broad but very important ones out of all those, as hereunder:

  • With the announcement of the National Health Policy 2017 (NHP 2017) and commitment to the same by none other than Prime Minister Modi himself, focusing on public health has now been recognized as one of the critical ingredients for the future economic prosperity of India. Hence, there is a fair chance now that the nation’s public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP would be gradually raised from around 1.2 percent to 2.5 percent – expectedly by 2020, bringing health in the core development agenda of both the Central and the State Governments.
  • The unfinished task of achieving MDGs needs to be completed faster, driven by its ongoing momentum. The national and the respective States-specific goals, along with a clear roadmap to achieve the targets within the specified time-frame, outlining the success indicators for each deliverable, assigning accountability to designated individuals with a periodic review system for the same, needs to be put in place, soon, actively encouraged by the current national development oriented Union Government, if not initiated already.
  • The process of implementation of the Universal Health Coverage (UHC), as enunciated in the NHP 2017 should be hastened. This is necessary to bring the entire population, without any discrimination whatsoever, as the beneficiary of this movement.
  • Scaling up the capacity building process at a much faster pace for the entire public health infrastructure and service delivery systems, along with skill development programs need to be placed at the center stage of the public health agenda of India, to bring SDG 3 to fruition.
  • Strategic involvement of private players and the credible NGOs to achieve SDG 3 targets would help move faster to ultimately experience the sense of a great public health related achievement for all concerned within, and probably outside the country, as well.

In conclusion:

As MDGs break ground for SDGs, India seems to me quite poised to achieving its health goals.

Moving towards this direction will invite a sharp focus on addressing the  non-communicable diseases, as well, while accelerating the ongoing efforts on maternal and child health, and nutrition.

It goes without saying that meeting SDG 3 targets will require adequate public investments for health, besides a well-crafted and time-bound public health policy, charting a clear roadmap for the same. The current Union Government now appears to have committed to both, putting its National Health Policy 2017 in place.

Once these goals are attained, it will enable India to clearly ‘Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, at all ages’. In that process, a new India will be created where all essential public health related needs and demands of all, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, will be expeditiously taken care of, delivering with precision high quality of products and services.

Hopefully, the transformed India would then demonstrate to the world, as someone had said before, it’s just not a matter of ‘more money for health, but also more health for money’.

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.

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

The main reason why cancer is so serious a disease, is the ability of the malignant cells to spread in the body, both locally by moving into nearby normal tissue, and regionally to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs, affecting even the distant parts of the body. When this happens, doctors term it as metastatic or stage IV (four) cancer.

Although most patients with metastatic tumors would eventually die of cancer, the treatment with various types of anticancer drugs, could help prolong life, in varying degree. No wonder, many new anticancer drugs now obtain regulatory approval based on their effectiveness on metastatic cancer patients. Consequently, it has now become almost a routine to administer newer anticancer drugs to patients with early stage of disease, after they have undergone surgery or radiotherapy.

But, these lifesaving drugs are expensive – very expensive! For example, a newer anticancer treatment is often priced at US$ 100,000 or more per patient, which, obviously, a large majority of the population can’t just afford.

Are these new drugs cost-effective?

To put in simple words, cost effectiveness of a drug is generally ‘expressed in terms of a ratio where the denominator is a gain in health from a measure (years of life, premature births averted, sight-years gained) and the numerator is the cost associated with the health gain.’

From this perspective, a January 2015 research study titled, “Pricing In The Market For Anticancer Drugs”, published by the National Bureau Of Economic Research of the United States observed that anticancer drugs like bevacizumab (US$ 50,000 per treatment episode) and ipilimumab (US$120,000 per episode) have fueled the perception that the launch prices of anticancer drugs are fast increasing over time.

To evaluate the pricing trend of these drugs, the researchers used an original dataset of 58 anticancer drugs, approved between 1995 and 2013, and found that launch-prices, adjusted for inflation and drugs’ survival benefits, increased by 10 percent, or about US$ 8,500, per year. This study was restricted to drugs administered with the primary intent of extending survival time for cancer patients and drugs for which survival benefits have been estimated in trials or modeling studies. The researchers did not consider drugs administered to treat pain or drugs that are administered to alleviate the side effects of cancer treatments.

The paper concluded, as compared to the older ones, newer anticancer treatments, generally, are less cost-effective. Despite this fact, the prices of these drugs are rising faster than their overall effectiveness.

How much do these drugs cost to prolong a year of life for cancer patients?

Another paper, titled “Cancer Drugs Aren’t As Cost-Effective As They Used To Be”, published in the Forbes magazine on September 30, 2015, expressed serious concern on the declining cost-effectiveness of new anticancer drugs. The author termed this trend as unacceptable, and more disturbing when providing just a year of life to cancer patients costs around US$ 350,000 to even US$ 800,000. High prices should reflect large benefits, and we need to demand value out of medical interventions – he recommended.

Do the claims of efficacy also reflect the real-world effectiveness?

Providing an answer to this question, a very recent article titled, “Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines”, published in the well reputed medical journal ‘JAMA Oncology’ on December 29, 2016, concluded as follows:

“Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.”

As stated above, this conclusion was drawn by the researchers after a detail study on the overall survival, quality of life, and safety benefits of recently licensed cancer medicines, as there was a dearth of evidence on the impact of newly licensed cancer medicines.

The authors analyzed in detail health technology assessment reports of 62 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between 2003 and 2013, and found that these were associated with increased overall survival by an average of 3.43 months between 2003 and 2013. Following is a summary of the detail findings:

  • 43 percent increased overall survival by 3 months or longer
  • 11 percent by less than 3 months
  • 30 percent was not associated with any increase in overall survival, which means almost one third of these drugs lacked evidence to suggest their increased survival rate when compared to alternative treatments
  • Most new cancer drugs, though improved quality of life, were associated with reduced patient safety

The researchers expect this study to support clinical practice, and promote value-based decision-making in the cancer drug treatment, besides assessing their cost-effectiveness.

Some overseas Cancer Institutes protested:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced through ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug at that time, from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut the price of Zaltrap by half.

Unlike India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of these drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Was it a tongue-in-cheek action from India?

On March 9, 2012, India did send a signal to global pharma players on its apparent unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country. The then Indian Patent Controller General, on that day, issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

However, nothing has changed significantly since then on the ground for cancer drugs in the country. Hence, many construe the above action of the Government no more than mere tokenism.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating an article, published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 that quoted Marijn Dekkers, the then CEO of Bayer AG as follows:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India, but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

VBP concept is gaining ground: 

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance, and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Intriguingly, in India, public health related issues, however pressing these are, still do not seem to arrest much attention of the government to provide significant relief to a large majority of population in the country.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life-saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is mainly because their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Currently, a sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s saving for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new cancer drugs market.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

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.