Tag Archives: Regulation

Drug Prescription In Generic Names Only, No Branded Generics

Posted on by
Reply

The World Bank Report released on April 07, 2023 highlights that patients’ Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenses as a percentage of their total healthcare expenditure in India still accounted for as high as 50.59%. This means that patients in India generally pay for the majority of their healthcare costs themselves, rather than through insurance or government funding. The high level of OoP expenses in India has been a major problem for many patients, even today. Studies indicate it often leads to financial hardship, especially for low-income families.

A number of factors contribute to the high level of OoP in the country, as a whole, with regional variations. According to several studies, the healthcare costs in India are rising faster than inflation, making it increasingly difficult for more people to afford the care they need, especially for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Different union governments while in power have taken several steps to address this problem, such as, in 2018, the launch of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY), a national health insurance scheme. It provides free coverage for poor and vulnerable families. The PMJAY is expected to have helped in reducing OoP for some patients, but it is not yet clear how much of an impact it has had overall.

On April 24, 2017, I asked on this blog – would drug ‘Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?’. Interestingly, in August 2023, a new circular from the National Medical Commission (NMC) notified professional conduct regulations for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP), including guidance to doctors on drug prescriptions.  This has raised a furor, as it were, among many medical practitioners and their associations. In this article, I shall deliberate on the pros and cons of this decision and its practicality in India. Let me start with the rationale behind such thinking, as I see it.

The rationales behind drug prescription only in generic names in India:

As I see it, there are several rationales behind doctors prescribing drugs only under generic names in India. Here are some of the most important ones:

  • Cost savings: Generic drugs are typically much cheaper than brand-name drugs. This is because generic drugs do not have to go through the same expensive clinical trials and marketing campaigns as brand-name drugs. As a result, they can be sold at a much lower price. This can save patients a significant amount of money, especially for expensive medications. 
  • Increased access to medicines: The lower cost of generic drugs can make them more accessible to people who might not otherwise be able to afford them. This is especially important in India, where a large proportion of the population lives below access, the poverty line. Generic drugs can help to ensure that everyone has access to the medicines they need. 
  • Improved competition: The availability of generic drugs can lead to increased competition in the pharmaceutical market. This can drive down prices even further and benefit patients.
  • Reduced risk of counterfeit drugs: Generic drugs are regulated by the government and must meet the same quality standards as brand-name drugs. This means that patients can be confident that they are getting a safe and effective product, regardless of whether it is a generic or brand-name drug. Counterfeit drugs, on the other hand, are often made with substandard ingredients and can be dangerous to take. By prescribing generic drugs, doctors can help to reduce the risk of patients getting counterfeit drugs. 
  • Transparency and accountability: In addition to these benefits, prescribing drugs under generic names can also help to promote transparency and accountability in the pharmaceutical industry. When doctors prescribe drugs under generic names, it is easier for patients to compare prices and choose the best option for their needs. This can help to drive down prices and improve the quality of care. 

A draft regulation was notified in 2022 for comments by all concerned:

For this purpose, a draft regulation was issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC) on May 23, 2022, for comments by all concerned, before it becomes mandatory in 2023. The NMC has also stated that it will take steps to ensure that the quality of generic drugs is maintained. The NMC will work with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to ensure that generic drugs meet the required quality standards.

The final notification goes beyond drug prescription in generic names:

On August 03, 2023, The National Medical Commission (NMC) notified the professional conduct regulation for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP). It not only provides guidance to avoid branded generic drugs and prescribing drugs with generic, non-proprietary and pharmacological names only, but also, restricts doctors from getting involved in any third-party educational activity like Continuing Professional Development, seminar, workshop, symposia, conference, etc., which involves direct or indirect sponsorships from pharmaceutical companies or the allied health sector. 

It justified its decision by saying, “India’s out-of-pocket spending on medication accounts for a major proportion of public spending on health care. Further, generic medicines are 30% to 80% cheaper than branded drugs. Hence, prescribing generic medicines may overtly bring down health care costs and improve access to quality care.” The notification also provided guidance on telemedicine consultation and prescriptions.  

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) Protested against it:

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) submitted a memorandum to the Indian regulator, the National Medical Commission (NMC), on February 7, 2023, protesting against the compulsory prescription of generic drugs. The memorandum argued that the regulations would harm patients and doctors, and that they were being implemented without proper consultation with stakeholders.

The IMA also stated that the regulations would violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression of doctors. The memorandum said that doctors should be free to prescribe drugs based on their medical judgment, and that they should not be forced to prescribe generic drugs.

The IMA’s protest is significant because it is the first major challenge to the NMC’s regulations on compulsory prescription of generic drugs. The protest could have a significant impact on the implementation of the regulations, and it could also lead to changes in the regulations.

It is important to note that the IMA is not the only organization that has expressed concerns about the NMC’s regulations. Several other medical associations have also expressed concerns, and some doctors have also spoken out against the regulations.

The controversy over the NMC’s regulations is likely to continue for some time. It is important to note that there are valid concerns on both sides of the issue. It is also important to remember that the regulations are still in the early stages of implementation, and that it is too early to say what their long-term impact will be.

A few reasons why doctors in India may be hesitant to prescribe drugs under generic names. 

Here are some of the most common reasons:

  • Lack of awareness: Some doctors may not be aware of the benefits of generic drugs. They may believe that brand-name drugs are always better than generic drugs, even though this is not always the case. 
  • Influence from pharmaceutical companies: Pharmaceutical companies often give doctors incentives to prescribe their brand-name drugs. This can create a conflict of interest for doctors, who may be more likely to prescribe brand-name drugs even if they believe that generic drugs are just as effective.
  • Patient demand: Some patients may specifically ask for brand-name drugs, even if generic drugs are available. This can put pressure on doctors to prescribe brand-name drugs, even if they believe that generic drugs are a better option.
  • Quality concerns: There have been some cases of counterfeit generic drugs being sold in India. This can lead to doctors being hesitant to prescribe generic drugs, as they may be concerned about the quality of the drugs.

Some ways to encourage doctors to prescribe generic drugs:

  • Educate doctors about the benefits of generic drugs. Doctors need to be aware of the benefits of generic drugs in order to be willing to prescribe them. They should be taught about the cost savings, increased access, and improved quality of generic drugs.
  • Reduce the influence of pharmaceutical companies on doctors. Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to give doctors incentives to prescribe their brand-name drugs. This would help to ensure that doctors are prescribing drugs based on the best interests of their patients, rather than on financial considerations. 
  • Encourage patients to ask for generic drugs. Patients should be aware of the benefits of generic drugs and should ask their doctors to prescribe them whenever possible. This will help to create a demand for generic drugs and encourage doctors to prescribe them. 
  • Improve the quality control of generic drugs. The government should take steps to improve the quality control of generic drugs in India. This would help to reduce the risk of patients getting counterfeit drugs. 

By taking these steps, we can encourage doctors to prescribe generic drugs and make them more accessible to patients. This would help to save patients money, improve access to medicines, and reduce the number of counterfeit drugs in circulation.

Conclusion:

I now revert to this month’s notification of the National Medical Commission (NMC) on the professional conduct regulation for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP), providing  new guidance for drug prescriptions in India. It clearly indicates that doctors should avoid prescribing branded generic drugs, instead prescribe drugs with generic, non-proprietary and pharmacological names only. ‘However, in the case of drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, biosimilars, and similar other exceptional cases, the practice of prescribing generic names only, can be relaxed,’ it elaborated.

Weighing the pros and cons of this notification, I reckon, despite the reasons articulated by doctors and their associations, besides the branded generic manufacturers, there are many benefits to prescribing drugs under generic names only. Generic drugs are typically much cheaper than brand-name drugs, and they are just as effective. They can also help to reduce the number of counterfeit drugs in circulation, besides several other benefits, as cited above. As a result, doctors should be encouraged to prescribe generic drugs whenever possible. Let me hasten to add, changing the prescribing practices of doctors and addressing concerns about the quality of generics can be a complex and gradual process.

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.

 

Pharma ‘Chatbots’: For Better Stakeholder Engagement

Posted on by
Reply

The critical value of meaningful interaction and engagement with individual customers – responding to their specific needs, is fast drawing attention of many businesses, for sustainable performance excellence. The same is happening in the pharma industry, as well. Creative use of this process leveraging modern technological support systems, would also provide a unique scope of cutting-edge brand service differentiation, in well researched areas.

That, it is a very important focus area for the pharma players, is no-brainer. Nonetheless, what really matters most is the novelty in strategizing such interactions and engagements, especially with patients and doctors. I also wrote about it in my article, titled ‘Indian Pharma To Stay Ahead of Technology Curve,’ published in this blog on May 22, 2017. Over two years ago, I clearly indicated there that application of AI via digital tools, called ‘Chatbots’ – the shorter form of ‘Chat Robot’, is one of the ways that pharma may wish to explore this area.

Illustrating this point in that article, I mentioned that on March 05, 2017, a leading bank in India announced the launch of an AI-driven Chatbot named Eva, coined from the words Electronic Virtual Assistant (EVA), to add more value to their services for greater customer satisfaction. ‘According to reports, Eva is India’s first AI driven banking Chatbot that can answer millions of customer queries on its own, across multiple channels, immediately.’

In this article, I shall dwell on this interesting area, with a primary focus on pharma sales and marketing, and assess the progress made in this space, thus far, by several drug companies, including some Indian players. Let me start by recapitulating the basic function and purpose of ‘Chatbots’ in pharma.

Pharma ‘Chatbots’ – the function and purpose:

Simply speaking, pharma ‘Chatbots’ are also AI-powered, fully automated virtual assistants. Its basic function is to mimic one-to-one human conversation on particular areas, as desired by the user. Likewise, its basic purpose is to genuinely help and assist the customers who are in search of right answers to specific disease related questions, in a one-to-one conversational format, having a higher source-credibility.

In that process, ‘Chatbots’ can effectively satisfy the patients and doctors by providing them the required information, immediately. In tandem, pharma companies also reap a rich harvest, by developing not just a trust-based healthy relationship with them, but also in building a robust corporate brand – creating a long-term goodwill that competition would possibly envy.  

Effective customer satisfaction is an area that can’t be ignored:

In the digital age, a new type of general need is all pervasive, with its demand shooting north. This is the need to satisfy a voracious appetite among a large section of the population for all types of information, with effortless and prompt availability of the required details – as and when these come to one’s mind.

When such information need relates to health concern of a person, such as – available treatment options against affordability, or drug price comparisons – factoring in effectiveness, safety concern – exactly the same thing happens. Most individuals won’t have patience even to write an email and wait for an answer, even the wait is just for a short while.

In the current scenario, it will be interesting to fathom, how would a pharma company, generally, interact or engage with such patients, to further business and creating a possible long-time customer? Some companies have started responding to this need – effectively and efficiently, by providing easy access to information through ‘Chatbots’, created on advances AI platforms. But, such players are a few in number.

Can pharma also think of ‘Chatbots’, like ‘Siri’ or ‘Alexa’?

Today, several people are using standalone and branded Chatbot devices in everyday life, such as, Siri (Apple), Alexa (Amazon), Cortana (Microsoft) or Google Now (Android). Interestingly, many industries, including a few companies in pharma, have also started developing their own version of ‘Chatbot dialog application systems.’

Industry specific ‘Chatbots’ are designed to meet with some specific purpose of human communication, including a variety of customer interaction, information acquisition and engagement – by providing a range of customized services to the target group.’ ‘Siri’ or ‘Alexa’ or the likes, on the other hand, are all-purpose general Chatbots, though, for everyday use of individuals. Thus, the question that comes up, in which areas pharma companies can use Chatbots to add value to their interactions and engagements with patients, in general, and also doctors.

Where to use ‘Chatbots’ as a new pharma marketing channel?

Some of the findings on the application of ‘Chatbots’, especially in pharma sales and marketing, featured in the CMI Media publication in December, 2016. It found that drug companies have a unique scope to leverage this new sales and marketing – channel, by developing ‘Chatbots’ in the company represented therapy areas. Following are just a few most simple illustrations of possible types ‘Chatbots’ for interaction and engagement with patients, which can be designed in interesting ways:

  • That can answer all types of patient questions on specific diseases, educate them about the disease and available treatment options with details.
  • That allows patients or physicians to get all relevant information about the prescription drugs that they require to prescribe for patients to start treatment, including potential side effects, adverse events, tolerability, dosing, efficacy and costs, besides others.
  • Once a treatment option is chosen, a third kind of Chatbot can help with patient adherence to treatment, provide reminders when the treatment should be administered, explain how to properly dose and administer the treatment, and other relevant information.

Chatbots could also be useful for doctors and nurses:

As the above paper finds, ‘Chatbots have value for serving healthcare professionals as well, for example:

  • When, physicians and nurses want to understand the pathogenesis, pathophysiology, and/or progression of a specific disease in their patients.
  • Although, such content may also be available on disease state awareness sites, but branded Chatbots would make that content readily available in more of an FAQ format.
  • When health care professionals would like to get data around safety/toxicity, or information about dosing strengths, calculations, and titrations, while using specific brands.

Chatbots can also be effectively utilized by the drug manufacturer to gain deep insights into customer behavior across all touchpoints, to enhance end-to-end customer experience, as I wrote in this blog on July 02, 2018. The data created through this process, can also be put to strategic use to design unique brand offerings.

Need to chart this frontier with caution:

Pharma, being a highly regulated industry in every country of the world, with a varying degree, though, the ‘Chatbot’ development process should strictly conform to all ‘Dos’ and ‘Don’ts’, as prescribed by the regulators of each country. Each and every content of the ‘Chatbot’ should pass through intense, not just regulatory, but also legal and medical scrutiny. Yet another, critical redline that ‘Chatbots’ should never cross is the ‘privacy’ of any individual involved in the process.

Three critical areas to consider for pharma ‘Chatbots’:

Effective pharma ‘Chatbots’ are expected to get ticks on all three of the following critical boxes:

  • Meeting clearly defined unmet needs of patients in search of a health care solution or most suitable disease treatment options.
  • Brand value offerings should match or be very close to the targeted patients’ and doctors’ expectations.
  • Should facilitate achieving company’s business objectives in a quantifiable manner, directly or indirectly, as was planned in advance.

Pharma has made some progress in this area, even in India:

To facilitate more meaningful and deeper engagements with patients, some drug companies, including, in India, are using ‘Chatbots.’ Here, I shall give just three examples to drive home the point – two from outside India and one from India.

October 23, 2018 issue of the pharma letter reported, a study from DRG Digital Manhattan Research found, ‘Novo Nordisk and Sanofi brands rank best for the digital type 2 diabetes patient experience.’ The article wrote, about some pharma players ‘facilitating deeper engagement through the use of automated tools like Chatbots to triage inquiries and get patients the answers they need faster, and through interactive content like quizzes and questionnaires that pull patients in and help them navigate health decisions,’ as follows:

  • Novo Nordisk‘s diabetes website includes an automated Chat feature dubbed “Ask Sophia,” helping patients access disease and condition management information more quickly.
  • Likewise, Merck & Co‘s website for Januvia employs interactive quizzes to educate patients and caregivers.

Similarly, on November 23, 2018, a leading Indian business daily came with a headline, ‘Lupin launches first Chatbot for patients to know about their ailments.’ It further elaborated, the Chatbot named ‘ANYA’, is designed to provide medically verified information for health-related queries. The disease awareness bot aims to answer patient queries related to ailments,’ the report highlighted.

Chatbots – global market outlook:

According to the report, titled ‘Healthcare Chatbots – Global Market Outlook (2017-2026),’the Global Healthcare Chat bots market accounted for USD 97.46 million in 2017 and is expected to reach USD 618.54 million by 2026 growing at a CAGR of 22.8 percent.

The increasing demand for Chatbot ‘virtual health assistance’, is fueled primarily by the following two key growth drivers, the report added:

  • Increasing penetration of high-speed Internet.
  • Rising adoption of smart devices.

Conclusion:

With the steep increase of the usage of the Internet and smart phones, general demand to have greater access to customized information is also showing a sharp ascending trend, over a period of time. A general expectation of individuals is to get such information immediately and in a user-friendly way.

Encouraged by this trend, and after a reasonably thorough information gathering process, mainly from the cyberspace, many patients now want to more actively participate in their treatment decision making process with the doctors. This new development has a great relevance to drug companies, besides other health service providers. They get an opportunity to proactively interact and engage with patients in various innovative ways, responding to individual health needs and requirements, thereby boosting the sales revenue of the corporation.

The unique AI-driven technological platform of pharma ‘Chatbots’, is emerging as cutting-edge tools for more productive stakeholder engagement – so important for achieving business excellence in the digital world. The recent growth trajectory of ‘Chatbots’ in the health care space, vindicates this point.

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.

Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

“Bottle Of Lies Exposes The Dark Side Of The Generic-Drug Boom” – re-emphasized the book, released in May 2019.  This confirms, the raging debate on the questionable quality of many generic drugs manufactured in India and involving several top domestic pharma companies, is a never-ending one. Numerous articles also ascribe many different reasons to this saga, leaving an overall impression – as if, blindfolded persons are trying to describe an elephant, touching and feeling different parts of the animal’s body, each at a time.

Let me illustrate the point with the Bloomberg article of January 31, 2019. It reported, “Culture of ‘Bending Rules’ in India Challenges U.S. Drug Agency.” And further commented: ‘The FDA confronts creative improvisation in the world’s largest generic-drug exporter.’ Curiously, according to the above report it seems to be a general belief among many, even within India.

This article will take into account the above apprehension – specifically raised against Indian drug manufacturers of both branded and non-branded generics. Accordingly, my focus will be on just three points – as possible causative factors for this critical issue:

  • Is it an India specific concern – thus related to ‘Indian cultural mindset’? or it’s a global issue, involving both Indian multinational drug manufacturers.
  • Is it a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide?
  • Are generic drug makers resorting to such unacceptable shortcuts due to increasing margin pressure?

Having deliberated these points, I shall try to outline a set possible remedial measures to address this issue in a holistic way, ensuring a win-win outcome. Let me first explore, whether or not this issue is specific to India, involving Indian drug manufacturers.

Is the issue India specific?

Is the issue of questionable quality of generic drugs, irrespective of whether they carry a brand name or not restricted to the shores of India? One can find its answer in the same report, as quoted above. A yearlong investigation by Bloomberg News into the generic-drug industry concluded, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’

One possible reason for such perception could be, since India is predominantly a branded generic market, voices decrying ‘questionable’ safety and efficacy of cheaper non-branded generic drugs, are too loud. Nevertheless, amidst all this, who’s who of branded generic manufacturers continue getting caught on the wrong foot by overseas regulators in the quality quagmire. Ironically, multinationals are also included in it.

Multinationals are also included in such quality quagmire:

There are several examples of non-compliance to requisite drug quality standards by multinational drug companies. Let me illustrate the point with an example that involves a top global pharma player.

The March 04, 2019 ‘Warning Letter’ of US-FDA for the Irungattukottai (Tamil Nadu) plant of Pfizer in India, clearly said: “Your quality system does not adequately ensure the accuracy and integrity of data to support the safety, effectiveness, and quality of the drugs you manufacture.”

This is not a solitary example of Pfizer’s generic hospital injectables manufactured in this plant. According to a media report dated July 17, 2018, twice before US-FDA had cited manufacturing and testing issues in this facility, containing 11 observations of the regulator, such as, workers “manipulated test sample weights to obtain passing results” for both batches of raw materials and finished product. It is a different matter that the company, later on, decided to close this plant for commercial reasons. Be that as it may, negative perception of generic drug quality is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed without further delay, holistically.

Studies have captured negative perception of generic drugs:

That this is a perception, has been well – elucidated along with its implications, in several studies. A few of which are as below:

A BMJ article concluded: “A significant proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people hold negative perceptions of generic medicines. It is likely these attitudes present barriers to the wider use of generics.” It further added, “Negative perceptions of medicine quality along with other drivers contribute towards choosing more expensive medicines in the private sector.”

Endorsing this point, yet another BMJ article inferred: “Negative perceptions of generic medicines and preferential promotion of branded medicines over generics by pharmaceutical companies could influence prescriber behavior and affect trust in healthcare provided in public services. To succeed, access to medicine programs need to systematically invest in information on the quality of medicines and develop strategies to build trust in healthcare offered in government health services.”

Again, in a separate survey of over 2700 physicians on perceptions of generic drugs, more than 23 percent of respondents expressed negative perceptions about their efficacy and nearly 50 percent. reported negative perceptions of generic drug quality. In the same survey, patients also expressed concerns that the lower cost of generics is associated with reduced medication quality.

Although, the above survey was conducted in the United States, the current situation in India, I reckon, is no different, but with one caveat. Here, preferential promotion of branded generic medicines over cheaper non-branded equivalents, by the respective drug manufacturers, could significantly influence prescriber behavior. Therefore, the question that follows: Is this perception-creation based on facts?

Is the negative perception fact-based?

Although, even the US-FDA clearly states that: ‘A generic medicine works in the same way and provides the same clinical benefit as its brand-name version”, I did try to find some conclusive evidence depicting brand name drugs are superior to their cheaper generic equivalents. While doing literature searches, two types of results emerged – there are studies that do not find any significant difference between generic drugs and their branded equivalents. At the same time, a few other studies do suggest that there is a difference between these two, but admitting that these studies are not conclusive. Let me give below examples of each.

No quality difference found between generic drugs and the branded variants: 

I shall quote here three studies, out of which one is India specific. The analysis reported in the above BMJ article, found that ‘the generic and branded variants of the medicines tested were of comparable quality.’

Another study, published by PLOS Medicine on March 13, 2019 also said, “In this study of 8 drug products conducted using 2 large US commercial insurance databases, we observed that use of generics provided comparable clinical outcomes as the brand products.”

An India specific researchon the same also reported, most generic and branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments with no significant difference in reported adverse effects and drug adherence.

Slightly different results were also reported with generics, but not conclusive:

One such study questioned, whether generic drugs are truly equivalent to the brand-name versions.This article was published on January 2019 by Harvard Health Publishing with the title, “Do generic drugs compromise on quality?”

This article quoted a Canadian study, published in the October 2017 issue of ‘Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes’, which found that patients who took generic versions of three different blood pressure medications in the months after the generic drugs became available saw increased rates of drug-related side effects.

Was it due to a perception bias?

To ascertain whether or not there is a perception bias, let us look into the following details of the same study along with its conclusion.

In this study, the researchers ‘looked at the numbers of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for 136,177 individuals ages 66 and over (60% of them women) who used any of three blood pressure medications: losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand). The investigators examined data for the periods 24 months before and 12 months after the generic versions of these medications went on the market. And found that before the generic versions became available, about one in 10 people taking the blood pressure drugs had to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized each month. In the month after each of the generics went into use, the rates of these adverse events went up: 8% for losartan, almost 12% for valsartan, and 14% for candesartan.’ The study authors commented, this might suggest performance differences between the brand-name and generic drugs.

However, analyzing this study, the Harvard article suggested further probe on the question: Did it result from quality problems with the generic versions of these medications or were there other factors that occurred in this time frame?

Another research, aimed at finding, whether patients are more adherent to generic statins than brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes, also concluded, “An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group.” This also wasn’t a conclusive one, either.

Nevertheless, the key point of a ‘perception bias’, is captured in a separate study, where the researchers did find higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization for patients taking generic and AG escitalopram and sertraline, compared with those who initiated the brand-name product. Importantly, they noted that these outcomes were likely due to either residual confounding or generic perception bias.

No quality difference also found between branded and non-branded generics in India:

There are studies, which captured no quality difference between branded generics and non-branded generics in the country. One such India specific study concluded: “Quality of branded-generics is same as for their branded version. The study highlights the need to modify the drug price policy, regulate the markups in the generic supply chain, conduct and widely publicize the quality testing of generics for awareness of all stakeholders.”

Thus, so far, we have seen in this article that concern on quality of generic drugs is neither India specific, nor is it related to ‘Indian cultural mindset.’ And this is, undoubtedly, a global issue, involving both Indian and multinational drug manufacturers. There are also ample evidences available that a systematic attempt is being made to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide. Let us now look at the third possible causative factor, as I listed above.

Is it due to margin pressure on generic drugs?

The answer to this question was deliberated in an article titled, ‘Generic drug makers feel pinch as prices crumble,’ published in the Financial Times on August 17, 2017. Quoting a top global financial analyst, it reported – global generic drug industry, where Indian manufacturers are major players,has maintained roughly 30 per cent operating margins over a long period of time, with improvements year on year. But, since last few years, there has been a margin degradation, which may possibly further go down – even lower than what it is today.

The article further highlighted, a round of consolidation among their main customers in the US: the wholesalers, have escalated the problem.  Many of these groups have clubbed together to form “mega buyers”, known as general purchasing organizations, that can command large discounts. Moreover, for the US market, another area of ‘concern’ is that the US-FDA has identified boosting competition in the generics market as one of its main priorities. As this reform opens up, it could squeeze the generic drug margins further.

Many envisage that intense cost cutting measures, could have transgressed in the drug quality assurance area, aggravating this issue. Although, it needs to be verified through credible studies, curiously, some signs of improvement in this area has recently been reported.

That said, there appears to be a strange coincidence between recent reports on Indian drug makers showing improvement in USFDA inspection outcomes and attempts to increase generic drug companies and some of their top executives slapped with price-fixing lawsuits in the U.S.This needs to be studied further.

The way forward:

The negative perception of generic drugs, in general, and non-branded generic drugs, in particular, is most likely a well-crafted business issue, rather than a genuine patient safety concern. It calls for an immediate two-pronged approach:

  • Vigorous awareness and educational campaigns on safety and efficacy of generic drugs targeted to patients, medical and paramedical professionals.
  • New regulatory measures, especially the following five:

- No pricing pressure or price control in any form of generic drugs

- Abolish brand names for generic drugs

- Make generic prescription compulsory to boost intense competition and thereby     reducing the price.

- Restrict the number of ingredients in FDC not more than two or three

- Make Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory.

Conclusion:

Thus, the questionable quality of generic drugs is not an India specific concern and involves both Indian multinational drug manufacturers. This is also evident from the analysis, as quoted above, that underscores, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’ Many studies have revealed that there is a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide.

A sequence of remedial measures, as described above, also include fostering competition, instead of introducing government controls on prices of generic drugs with stringent regulatory oversight being in place.

Thus, the so called ‘belief’ that the ‘culture of bending Rules’ is culpable for dubious generic drug quality in India, is more akin to a strong perception, prevailing in India, rather than based on any scientific analysis related to this issue. This ought to change with a well-coordinated intervention – for patients’ health interest 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.

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Posted on by
Reply

‘Without Providing Affordable Medicines, There Can’t be Health Security’, said the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India, as reported on September 22, 2017. Although, the Minister made this remark while discussing Government price control on cardiac stents in India, let me dwell on the subject based on the above news headline by asking: Is drug price control improving access to medicines for greater ‘Health Security’ of the country?

It’s no rocket science to understand that making affordable drugs ‘available’ in requisite quantity for all, is essential, basically, for improving ‘access’ to medicines. Nevertheless, the mere availability of drugs is no guarantee for their improving access to all.

If we take a closer look at the well-articulated key objectives of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, under which both the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) and the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) belong, this dichotomy will be easier to fathom.

The key objective of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy: 2012’, which is operational today, reads as: “To put in place a regulatory framework for pricing of drugs so as to ensure availability of required medicines – “essential medicines” – at reasonable prices even while providing sufficient opportunity for innovation and competition to support the growth of the industry, thereby meeting the goals of employment and shared economic well-being for all. The reasons are further elaborated later in the Policy Document.”

Similarly, according to the NPPA, one of the key objectives of drug price control in India is to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices of essential and life-saving and prophylactic medicines of good quality. Hence, the current key focus of the DoP and NPPA, on paper, does not go beyond making ‘affordable drugs available for all.”

Thus, the crucial point to ponder: Is ongoing drug price control, improving even availability of medicines for all to attain greater ‘health security’ of the country, as the Union Minister underscores?

A course correction without flagging the new course:

The Draft Pharma Policy 2017 makes an important course correction to address this critical issue. It expresses its objective in this important area slightly differently, by adding the word ‘accessible’, as: “Making essential drugs ‘accessible’ at ‘affordable prices’ to the common masses.”

Intriguingly, the draft remains mute, when it boils down to answering the fundamental question, how would this new policy improve access to affordable drugs for the common masses, without having any jurisdiction to improving access to overall health care? That turf, unquestionably, belongs to the Ministry of Health. Thus, I reckon, achieving this modified goal, in its totality, is no more than a rhetoric.

Would better availability guarantee greater patient access to drugs?

As things stand today, it is quite unlikely to happen. The broad process of improving access to health care in a holistic way, is enshrined in the  National Health Policy 2017, which is already in place. It assures the nation of progressively achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’. It outlines measures to improve the availability, access and affordability for quality secondary and tertiary care services, with significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on health care. The policy also emphasizes that this process would considerably reduce the proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures, and consequent impoverishment.

The silo mentality won’t work:

Although, the Ministry of Health is primarily responsible for meeting universal access to health care, which includes drugs, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers too, shoulders a crucial responsibility in this area. Thus, attaining the Health and Pharma policy goals – individually, collectively and meaningfully, both these Ministries need to work closely together, along with the State Governments, in the true spirit of cooperative federalism. The silo mentality has not worked and won’t work, ever, to meet health aspirations of the people.

Access to health care – a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs:

As I see it, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs for country’s ‘health security’. Without providing access to requisite health care, making affordable drugs available for all, does not make much sense, if at all. This is because, patients will buy or get medicines only when a medical or paramedical professional will advise and prescribe them what to buy while treating any particular ailment.

Is the key pharma policy goal anywhere near its target?

Be that as it may, let me now try to gauge whether even the current key goal of the pharma policy to make an increasing quantity of affordable drugs available to more number of the population is anywhere near its target or not.

Capturing the impact of the present pharma policy on the ‘health’ of Indian pharma industry, the Annual Report 2016-17 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) acknowledges that owing to the Government’s efforts to make medicines affordable, the domestic Pharma market witnessed a slowdown in the ongoing financial year. The industry registered a decline in growth of 7.4 percent over the corresponding figure for 2014 -15, with a similar aftermath in its financial performance.

Interestingly, a Press Release of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of September 27, 2016 claims that ‘ceiling prices’ of 464 formulations fixed after announcement of NLEM, 2015 and Revised Schedule-I, resulted in savings of Rs 2288 crore for consumers. Let me also add that a September 22, 2017 tweet of the same Union Minister gives a much higher number in this regard, which includes cardiac stents, though.

Fair enough, in that increasing patient access to affordable drugs ought to get reflected in the reasonable incremental volume growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), at least, of those products, which feature in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)? Contrary to this expectation, according to an article published by ‘Pharmabiz’ website on the CPhI India Special supplement in December 2016, ‘over the past 3 years (FY 2013 – FY 2016), the IPM has grown at a CAGR of ~ 11%, much lower than its historical average growth rate of 15%.’

Thus, both the private retail audit data, and also the submission of the DoP clearly indicate that this has not happened, as a desired outcome of drug price control.

Drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant either:

My above argument doesn’t also mean that drug price control, or stringent price monitoring, or tough price negotiation – in whatever way one may call it, is of no use; even where Universal Health Care (UHC) is up and running. This is regardless of whether this universal care is insurance driven, as in the United States, or state funded, as in the United Kingdom. As I said before, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs. I stressed this point briefly in one of my recent articles published in this blog, while focusing on another important development.

Drug price regulation in the UHC countries:

In case of insurance driven UHC, insurance companies or related payers, or even the regulators, mostly enforce stringent control on drug prices, as is currently happening in the United States. This fact is vindicated by a May 29, 2017 report that indicates: “The pharma industry, under the constant glare of the US drug regulator, has to contend now with pricing pressures in the American market.” The report further highlighted: “From Sun Pharma and Lupin to Glenmark, Dr. Reddy’s and the others, price erosion in generic drugs has been a common anguish as they declared their results for the fourth quarter ended March 31. For some of these companies, more than 40 per cent of their revenues come from the US market. The developments came at a time new launches in the US – at least for some of them – have taken a hit because of regulatory action. Pricing pressure in generics is not new, but this has exacerbated in recent times, with experts warning of further deterioration.”

Similarly, where the UHC is funded by the State, such as in the United Kingdom, prices of branded pharmaceuticals supplied to the National Health Service (NHS), are controlled either by the ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS)’ or by the ‘Health Service Branded Medicines Regulations 2008’. The situation is no different virtually in the entire Europe.

Moreover, in Japan, where UHC functions so immaculately, the regulatory officials of the country announced in December, as reported on 7th March 2017, the Government plans to review drug prices more frequently –  annually for all therapies and quarterly for the newest, and most expensive ones that are used widely. Over recent months, the price of Opdivo, a blockbuster cancer drug from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Japan’s Ono Pharmaceutical Co., was halved in Japan following a 32 percent cut in April for Gilead Sciences Inc.’s hepatitis cure Sovaldi, the report said.

In addition, an OECD report dated January 16, 2017 observes: “The proliferation of high-cost medicines and rising drug prices are increasing pressures on public health spending and calling into question the pharmaceutical industry’s pricing strategies. Governments need to work with the industry and regulators to define a new approach to the development and use of new health technologies that encourages innovation while also delivering more affordable and value for money treatments.”

Hence, drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant, either in India or even in countries with a robust UHC system in place, not just yet.

The rationale behind drug price control in UHC countries and India:

The major difference in the rationale of drug price control between the countries with UHC and others, such as India is as follows:

  • UHC countries extend health coverage between 80 to 100 percent of the population, on an average, with a very low percentage of ‘out of pocket expenses’ on drugs. Hence, the Government and other payers want to keep their own cost of drugs within a reasonable limit with drug price control, though its methodology varies from country to country.
  • On the other hand, in countries, such as India, where UHC is not available, over 70 percent of the population incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on health care – and over 60 percent of which is spent on drugs. Hence, the Government intends to ensure a significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ towards medicines, by trying to make more affordable drugs available to many through drug price control.

Conclusion:

All health care related policy measures of the Government are important for the nation. As I know, the related discussion papers are circulated by the Government only after several informal and ongoing discussions on the subject with the stakeholders, and considering other feedbacks received in that process.

Despite this general mechanism, several points of draft proposals, or even the final policy, are often not liked by all, triggering a raging debate and inviting stringent criticisms, including disagreement from other ministries. For example, according to reports: “Even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the government’s intention to ensure access to affordable medicines, the government policy think tank NITI Aayog seems to be pushing for greater deregulation of drug prices and to disempower India’s drug price regulator.” Just as many others, I also often participate in such debates.

That said, improving not just availability, but in tandem with greater access to affordable drugs, would play a key role to foster overall ‘Health Security’ of the country. Drug price control or its equivalent measures, alone, does not improve access to affordable drugs, except shaving off significant revenue and profit of the pharma companies. Whether the appropriate terminology in this case would be ‘profit’ or ‘profiteering’, is part of a separate debate, altogether.

Neither, impeccable sets of pharma and health policies, implemented in-silo by the two different ministries, will help achieve this goal. As is well researched, an excellent policy with shoddy or improper implementation, fetches far worse outcome than an average policy when implemented well, and in close coordination with other policies having common goals. This holds good even while striving for a robust ‘Health Security’ for 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.

 

“Kickbacks And Bribes Oil Every Part of India’s Healthcare Machinery” – A National Shame?

Posted on by
Reply

“Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India” - highlights an article published in the well-reputed British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 08 May 2014. The author David Berger wrote, “Kickbacks and bribes oil every part of the country’s healthcare machinery and if India’s authorities cannot make improvements, international agencies should act.”

The author reiterated the much known facts that the latest in technological medicine is available only to those people who can pay for its high price. However, the vast majority of the population has little or no access to healthcare, and whatever access they have is mostly limited to substandard government care or to quacks, which seem to operate with near impunity. He further points out that “Corruption is rife at all levels, from the richest to the poorest”. It is a common complaint both from the poor and the middle class that they don’t trust their doctors from the core of hearts. They don’t trust them to be competent or to be honest, and live in fear of having to consult them, which results in high levels of doctor shopping.

Dr. Berger also deliberated on the widespread corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, with doctors bribed to prescribe particular drugs. Common stories usually doing the rounds that the decision makers in the hospitals are being given top of the range cars and other inducements when their hospitals sign contracts to prescribe particular expensive drugs preferentially.

The article does not fail to mention that many Indian doctors do have huge expertise, are honorable and treat their patients well. However, as a group, doctors generally have a poor reputation.

Until the profession along with the pharma industry is prepared to tackle this malady head-on and acknowledge the corrosive effects of medical corruption, the doctor-patient relationship will continue to lie in tatters, the paper says.

The saga continues through decades – unabated:

The above worrying situation in the space of medical treatment in India refuses to die down and continues since decades.

The article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) over a decade ago, on January 04, 2003 vindicates this point, when it brings to the fore, “Health care is among the most corrupt services in India”.

This article was based on a survey released by the India office of the international non-governmental organization ‘Transparency International’. At that time, it ranked India as one of the 30 most corrupt countries in the world. The study covered 10 sectors with a direct bearing on people’s lives, where the respondents rated the police as the most corrupt sector, closely followed by healthcare.

Medical Council of India (MCI) is responsible for enforcing the regulations on medical profession. Unfortunately, the MCI itself is riddled with corruption, fueled by the vested interests. As the first BMJ article indicates,   Subsequently, there has been controversy over the surprise removal, on the day India was declared polio-free, of the health secretary Keshav Desirajus, possibly in response to his resistance to moves to reappoint Desai to the reconstituted MCI.

Another point to ponder: Quality of Doctor – MR interactions

It is a well-established fact that the ethics, values and belief in pharmaceutical sales and marketing are primarily derived from the ethics, values and belief of the concerned organization.  Field staff systems, compliance, accountability, belief, value and culture also flow from these fundamentals. Thus, considering the comments made in the BMJ on the pharma companies, in general, let me now also deliberate on the desired roles of the Medical Representatives (MR) in this area.

It is well known that MRs of the pharma players exert significant influence on the prescribing practices of the doctors and changing their prescribing patterns too. At the same time, this is also equally true that for a vast majority of, especially, the General Practitioners (GPs), MRs are the key source of information for various drugs. In tandem, several research studies also indicate that doctors, by and large, believe that pharma companies unduly influence them.

Theoretically, MRs should be properly trained to convey to the target doctors the overall profile – the efficacy, safety, utility, precautions and contra-indications of their respective products. Interestingly, the MRs are trained by the respective pharma companies primarily to alter the prescribing habits of the target doctors with information heavily biased in favor of their own drugs.

As a result, range of safety, precautions and contra-indications of the products are seldom discussed, if not totally avoided, putting patients at risks by creating an unwarranted product bias, especially among GPs, who depend mainly on MRs for product information. Thus, the quality of product communication is mainly focused on benefits rather than holistic – covering all intrinsic merits/demerits of the respective brands in a professional manner.

Considering the importance of detailing in delivering the complete product information primarily to the GPs, there is a critical need for the pharma companies to train and equip the MRs with a complete detailing message and yet be successful in winning the doctors’ support.

This issue also needs to be properly addressed for the interest of patients.

“Means” to achieve the goal need to change: 

Globally, including India, many pharma players have not been questioned, as yet, just not on the means of their meeting the financial goals, but also the practices they follow for the doctors. These often include classifying the physicians based on the value of their prescriptions for the specific products. Accordingly, MRs are trained to adopt the respective companies’ prescribed ‘means’ to influence those doctors for creating a desirable prescription demand. These wide array of so-called ‘means’, as many argue, lead to alleged ‘bribery’/’kickbacks’ and other malpractices both at the doctors’ and also at the pharma companies’ end.

To address this issue, after the Chinese episode, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has reportedly announced that by the start of 2016 it will stop paying doctors to speak on its behalf or to attend conferences, to end undue influence on prescribers.

The announcement also indicated that GSK has planned to remove individual sales targets from its sales force. This means that MRs would no longer be paid according to the number of prescriptions they solicited from the doctors met by them.

Instead, GSK introduced a new performance related scheme that will reward the MRs for their technical knowledge, the quality of the service they deliver to support improved care of patients, and the overall performance of GSK’s business. The scheme is expected to start in some countries effective January 2014 and be in place globally by early 2015.

Further, GSK underscored that the latest changes were “designed to bring greater clarity and confidence that whenever we talk to a doctor, nurse, or other prescriber, it is patients’ interests that always come first.”

This is indeed a refreshing development for others to imbibe, even in India.

Capturing an Indian Example:

Just to cite an example, a couple of years ago Reuters in an article titled “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing” reported that a coffee maker, cookware and vacuum cleaner, were among the many gifts for doctors listed in an Abbott Healthcare sales-strategy guide for the second quarter of 2011 in India, a copy of which was reviewed by Reuters.

It is interesting to note from the report, even for an antibiotic like Nupod (Cefpodoxime), doctors who pledge to prescribe Abbott’s branded drugs, or who’ve already prescribed certain amounts, can expect some of these items in return, the report mentioned.

Since decades, media reports have highlighted many more of such instances. Unfortunately, the concerned government authorities in India refused to wake-up from the deep slumber, despite the alleged ruckus spreading like a wild fire.

Self-regulation by the industry ineffective:

This menace, though more intense in India, is certainly not confined to the shores of this country. As we all know, many constituents of Big Pharma have already been implicated in the mega pharma bribery scandal in China.

Many international pharmaceutical trade associations, which are primarily the lobbying bodies, are the strong votaries of self-regulations by the industry. They have also created many documents in these regards since quite some time and displayed those in their respective websites. However, despite all these the ground reality is, the charted path of well-hyped self-regulation by the industry to stop this malaise is not working.

The following are just a few recent examples to help fathom the enormity of the problem and also to vindicate the above point:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • 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.

Pricing is also another important area where the issue of both ethics and compliance to drug regulations come in. The key question continues to remain, whether the essential drugs, besides the patented ones, are priced in a manner that they can serve the needs of majority of patients in India. I have deliberated a part of this important issue in my earlier blog post titled “Is The New Market Based Pricing Model Fundamentally Flawed?”

There are many more of such examples.

Stakeholders’ anguish:

Deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is now being increasingly reverberated on every passing day in India, as it were. It had also drawn the attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government, Planning Commission and even the Parliament.

The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 58th Report strongly indicted the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) on this score. It observed that the DoP should take prompt action in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory so that effective checks and balances could be brought-in on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Despite deplorable inaction by the erstwhile Government on the subject, frequent reporting by Indian media has triggered a national debate on this issue. A related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is also now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. Its judicial verdict is expected to usher in a breath of fresh air around a rather stifling environment for the patients.

Let us now wait and see what action the new minister of the Modi Government takes on this issue.

A prescription for change:

Very recently, Dr. Samiran Nundy, Chairman of the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Organ Transplantation at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Current Medicine Research and Practice, has reportedly exposed the widespread (mal) practices of doctors in India taking cuts for referrals and prescribing unnecessary drugs, investigations and procedures for profit.

Dr. Nundy suggested that to begin with, “The Medical Council of India (MCI), currently an exclusive club of doctors, has to be reconstituted. Half the members must be lay people like teachers, social workers and patient groups like the General Medical Council in Britain where, if a doctor is found to be corrupt, he is booted out by the council.”

Conclusion:

Efforts are now being made in India by some stakeholders to declare all malpractices related to pharma industry illegal through enactment of appropriate robust laws and regulations, attracting exemplary punishments to the perpetrators.

However, enforcement of MCI Guidelines for the doctors and initiatives towards enactment of suitable laws/regulations for the pharma industry, like for example, the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act’ of the United States, have so far been muted by the vested interests.

If the new Modi government too, does not swing into visible action forthwith, this saga of international disrepute, corruption and collusion in the healthcare space of India would continue in India, albeit with increasing vigor and probably in perpetuity. This would, undoubtedly, sacrifice the interest of patients at the altar of excessive greed and want of the vested interests.

This new government, as most people believe, has both the will and wherewithal to hold this raging mad bull of pharma malpractices by the horn, ensuring a great relief and long awaited justice for all.

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. 

FDC Saga: Defiant Manufacturers, Sloppy Regulators and Humongous Inaction

Posted on by
Reply

“TO SIN BY SILENCE WHEN THEY SHOULD PROTEST MAKES COWARDS OF MEN”       – Abraham Lincoln

The ghost of untested, irrational and even of bizarre kind of Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs, which continue to be launched, promoted, prescribed and sold freely across the length and breadth of India, has started haunting the Ministry of Health of India, yet again, in 2013. 

Though the issue originated decades ago, in 1988 appropriate ‘Rule’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India was amended suitably to have a firm regulatory grip over this situation. Despite this much awaited amendment, the situation almost went astray with incessant market entry of a large number untested FDC medicines of dubious medical rationale.

A free for all situation, as it were, in the FDC arena, continued to be facilitated by blatant laxity on the part of, especially, the state drug regulators by allowing unfettered market entry of such drugs, ignoring the CDSCO directive.

On the other hand, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), despite its statutory powers,  continued to suffer from humongous inaction untill the issue resurfaced again in 2007 and then of course, now in 2013.

The WHO Model:

The 2005 ʹProcedure to update and disseminate the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, Criteria for Selection’ includes the following statement regarding Fixed Dose Combination products (FDCs):

ʺMost essential medicines should be formulated as single compounds. Fixed‐dose combination products are selected only when the combination has a proven advantage over single compounds administered separately in therapeutic effect, safety, and adherence or in delaying the development of drug resistance in malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.ʺ

Thus, FDCs:

  • Need to demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety beyond the individual drugs when given alone.
  • Need to ‘demonstrate bioequivalence of the single combined dose unit with the components administered in the same doses separately but concomitantly’.

‘Adherence’ aspect of WHO Model for FDCs is also important. Problems with ‘adherence’ could lead to inadequate and inconsistent dosing, which in turn could lead to development of drug resistance.

With robust and unquestionable medical rationale, FDCs are expected to provide superior efficacy and improved compliance without causing any untoward risk to patients.

A major disadvantage:

However, one of the major disadvantages with the FDCs is lack of flexibility in adjusting dose of individual ingredients, even if it is required for some patients. Internationally, most popular example is the FDCs of antiretroviral drugs for HIV infected patients like, Combivir, Trzivir, Kaletra etc.

Interestingly, in India there are FDCs for almost all disease areas from allergic disorders to Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome (exaggerated), as it were.

Market attractiveness for FDCs in India: 

The domestic market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. The following table will vindicate this point:

% Share

Drug

2008

2009

2010

2011

Plain

55

55

55

54
Combinations

45

45

45

46

Domestic Market: USD 13 Billion; MAT Apr 2013

Source:IMS

Thus, because of growing market demand, pharmaceutical companies in India tend to market FDCs of all different permutations and combination, at times even crossing the line of any ‘sound medical rationale’. For this reason, we find in the website of ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization’ (CDSCO), the banned list of so many FDCs.

A messy regulatory situation:

Introduction of new FDCs does not only warrant a ‘sound medical rationale’ but also ‘strict conformance to all prescribed regulatory requirements’ for patients’ interest. 

To check unfettered market introduction of potentially harmful FDCs, the Ministry of Health issued a Notification in September 1988, including FDCs in Rule 122 E of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (D&CR) 1945.

In effect, it removed the powers of the State FDAs to give manufacturing or marketing approval of FDCs. After the notification was issued, all manufacturers/marketers of all new FDCs are required to apply only to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under Rule 122E of the D&CR 1945 as a new drug, along with the stipulated fees by way of a Treasury Challan.

Since this entire process entails appropriate regulatory data generation, besides  time and expenses involved, the above ‘Rule’ was continuously and deliberately broken and manufacturing and marketing approvals for various types of FDCs falling under ‘new drug’ category were regularly sought and granted by the State Drug Controllers.

Many believe that the State FDAs were equally responsible for knowingly flouting the Law, as were the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Patients’ safety – the foremost concern:

Despite serious concerns expressed by a Parliamentary Standing Committee, this complicity resulted in the market being flooded with ‘irrational combinations’ which posed a real threat to patients’ interest and safety. The State FDAs were reminded of the notification by the earlier DCGI.

294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. Thereafter, the important issue of patients’ interest and safety got converted into a legal quagmire, as many FDC manufacturers chose to go to the court of law to protect their business interest and also managed to obtain a ‘Stay’ order from the Madras High Court. The matter is still subjudice.

Be that as it may, those 294 FDCs banned by the Ministry of Health of India on health and safety grounds continue to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India without any hindrance, whatsoever.  

Untangling the messy knot:

As the issue got entangled into prolonged litigations, the CDSCO took initiative of resolving this contentious issue again in 2009 with the help of an expert committee, involving the manufacturers.

This subcommittee cleared 48 FDCs under ‘similar FDCs already approved’, after discussing the merits and demerits, including pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, side effects, dosage, medical rationale etc. of each ingredient and the combinations. The decision of the Sub Committee was then submitted to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB).

After formal approval of DTAB, these combinations are construed to be new drugs and any company wishing to market/manufacture the formulation would require submitting its Application in Form 44 to the DCGI to get approval in Form 45.

This decision was expected to send a clear signal to all concerned that resorting to any form of shortcuts to bypass strict adherence to prescribed regulatory requirements, could seriously jeopardize patients’ interest and safety. The same process was subsequently followed for the balance 142 FDCs, as well.

Thereafter, a special committee was again appointed by the CDSCO in 2013 to look into this matter in a holistic way. However, such sporadic knee-jerk reactions have failed to deliver any tangible results in this area – not just yet.

The saga continues:

Even after the above critical decision of the DTAB the saga still continues.

In March 2013, by a written reply, the Minister for Health and Family Welfare reportedly informed the Lok Sabha (the lower House of the Parliament) that in twenty three cases of new FDC, licenses have been granted by the State Licensing Authorities (SLAs) without the mandatory approval of the DCGI and action will be taken in all these cases.

However, no one seems to know, as yet, what action the Government has taken against those errant officials.

Current scenario:

Recently, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) by a notification to State Drug Controllers has reportedly ordered all manufacturers of new FDC products, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013.

This decision of DGHS has created a furore within the concerned FDC manufacturers, yet again, the possible outcome of which is yet to be ascertained.

The State Drug Controllers had issued manufacturing licenses for these FDCs prior to October 2012. At that time concerned manufacturers were given 18 months time period to prove efficacy and safety of these medicines to the DCGI. Regrettably, as per the above report, the DCGI has confirmed that he has received hardly any response from the FDC manufacturers till date on this regulatory requirement.

CDSCO has also stated that manufacturers, who will fail to submit the required data by the deadline run the risk of having their products banned from the market.

Before this, the State Drug Controllers were informed about this requirement on January 15, 2013.

At this point it is worth mentioning, the DCGI in October 2012 had reportedly also barred the State Drug Controllers from granting manufacturing licenses to pharmaceutical companies under brand names of the drugs, directing them to strictly issue licenses under generic name of the molecule. Additionally, he also asked the state licensing authorities not to grant licenses to combination drugs, which are technically ‘new drugs’ and fall within the domain of DCGI only.

Conclusion:

This logjam with FDCs certainly cannot continue in perpetuity, neither should such regulatory sloppiness be acceptable to any right thinking stakeholder.

All blatant violations of Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India must be stopped forthwith and the violators be brought to justice without delay. Patients’ health interest, as required by the drug regulators, is non-negotiable.

The order of DGHS asking all manufacturers of new FDCs, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013, should not follow recently reported Pioglitazone type of volte face, once again, under similar outside pressure.

It is high time now for the Government to bring the unending saga of  irrational and harmful FDCs, orchestrated by defiant manufacturers, encouraged by sloppy regulators and catalyzed by humongous systemic inaction, to its logical conclusion, 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.

 

 

Ethical Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices: ‘Self-Regulation’…’Voluntary Physician Payments Disclosure’…What’s next?

Posted on by
Reply
Over a period of time, many stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry and the public at large have been raising the issue of physicians being influenced in their prescription decisions by various types of payments made to them by the pharmaceutical companies. Such types of significant and seemingly avoidable expenditures, considered by the respective companies as a part of their ‘marketing costs’, are believed to be included in the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines making them more expensive to the patients.On the other hand, most physicians believe that free entertainment, gifts, their travel costs and seminar sponsorships in no way influence their prescription decision for a patients.This issue is not India specific. It is indeed a global issue.

Self regulation by the industry is considered to be the name of the game:

To address this issue effectively, international pharmaceutical associations, like International Federation of Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) have come out with their own codes of ethical marketing practices with appropriate stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism to respond to stakeholder complaints, effectively.

In India, pharmaceutical industry association like Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI) and Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association (IDMA) have also formulated their own codes of ethical marketing practices.

Despite all these, it is indeed an undeniable fact that the perception and the allegation of the stakeholders including the general public towards the pharmaceutical industry, in general, have not changed much.

The government intervened in India:

Being alarmed by various media reports on the current pharmaceutical marketing (mal) practices scenario, the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) convened a meeting of the pharmaceutical Industry on the subject this year and advised the pharmaceutical industry to develop a ‘Uniform Code of Marketing Practices (UCMP)’, which will be applicable to the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.

‘Uniform Codes of Marketing Practices (UCMP)’:

It is believed that the UCMP is in its final stages of release along with its stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism in a transparent procedural format. Everybody expects that all stakeholders will help maintaining the sanctity of the UCMP to address this sensitive global and local issue effectively.

A new trend of public disclosure of ‘payments to the physicians’ by the global pharmaceutical companies:

Around third quarter of 2008, in an industry first step, Eli Lilly announced its intent of full disclosure of payments that the company made to the physicians for various commercial reasons. Eli Lilly indicated disclosure of payments of more than US $500 to the physicians for advice and speaking at the seminars. Over a period of time, the company indicated that it will expand such disclosure to include other forms of payments to the physicians like gifts, various entertainment and travel.

Eli Lilly was soon followed in this direction by global pharmaceutical majors like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

Skepticism with such voluntary disclosure will still exist:

Many are still skeptical about such ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ announcements by the global pharmaceutical majors to bring in better transparency in the functioning of the industry. They believe that there are hundreds and thousands of pharmaceutical companies who will not follow such precedence of voluntary disclosure in the absence of any properly enforced regulation.

Conclusion:

‘Self-regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices’ and ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by some pharmaceutical companies are laudable steps to address this problem. However, the moot question still remains: are all these enough?

By Tapan 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.