Tag Archives: Singh

Why Many Successful CEOs Don’t Want to Retire – in Pharma Too?

Posted on by
Reply

“On Eve of Retirement, Jack Welch Decides to Stick Around GE a Bit,” reported the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on October 23, 2000. Nevertheless, even the legendary Jack Welsh was made no exception to GE’s mandatory retirement policy for the CEO at 65. After holding the position of Chairman and CEO of GE for 20 years – with stellar performances, Welsh had to retire on September 07, 2001, as he attained that age.

This happened almost immediately after the US$ 45 billion merger with Honeywell. Welsh spearheaded this initiative, intending to create one of the world’s largest industrial companies, with manufacturing operations in plastics, chemicals and aerospace products, at that time. It’s a different matter altogether that later on, the report onThe Anatomy of the GE-Honeywell Disaster narrated a different reality on the consequences of this acquisition.

The key point to ponder – why many successful CEOs don’t want to easily retire, passing on the baton to a younger generation, unless directly or indirectly compelled by the investors or the regulators. In this article, I shall try to explore this point.

Many older CEOs not eager to head into retirement:

While discussing a similar point, an article titled: “For older CEOs, the issue is knowing when to bow out,” published in the USA Today on April 19, 2016, made some interesting observations. It said: “Just as older employees stay in jobs out of desire or necessity, some of those occupying the C-suite aren’t eager to head into retirement.”

According to a survey done by Korn Ferry among Fortune 500 CEOs, over the past decade:

  • The number of CEOs with age between 65 and 60 years, nearly doubled to 36.
  • Those with age between 70 and 74 increased from 9 to 13.

Korn Ferry also found in another survey that CEOs are the oldest and longest-tenured individuals compared with other prominent C-suite roles. Some of the oldest and famous global CEO names would include, Warren Buffett – 85 years of Berkshire Hathaway and Rupert Murdoch – also aged 85 years and is the Executive Chairman of News Corp. and Twenty-First Century Fox.

A couple of Indian examples of large Indian business conglomerates would include, A. M. Naik (born on June 09, 1942) who served as the Group Executive Chairman of L&T even at the age of 75 and the other – Y.V. Yogeshwar (born on February 04, 1947) was at the helm as the Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at ITC Ltd till February 4, 2017, at the age of 70. More recently, on October 22, 2018, the Reserve Bank of India accorded its approval for reappointment of Mr. Aditya Puri as its MD & CEO of HDFC Bank Ltd. till October 26, 2020 – the date of his attaining age of 70 years.

What’s happening in the pharma industry?

The pharma industry too is no different. For example, Merck & Co’s distinguished top leader – Kenneth Frazier, who turns 65 on December 2019, will stay on as CEO beyond 2019. This was reported on September 26, 2018 stating that Merck has scrapped the policy requiring its CEO to retire at the age of 65. Curiously, this announcement is quite unlike what we witnessed in a similar case with GE where no exception made to the CEO retirement policy even for someone as globally famous as Jack Welsh.

Another recent example from the pharma industry, would possibly include one more celebrated pharma CEO – Abbott’s Miles White. He is currently at 63 and in his 20th year as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Abbott Laboratories. Just as Merck & Co, Abbott also announced that White doesn’t have any plans to leave his position as Chairman and CEO “anytime soon.” This happened, after the appointment of company’s President and Chief Operating Officer (COO), which is the first official No. 2 executive and COO Abbott happening after more than a decade, as reported on October 18, 2018.

A couple of similar examples from India that I gathered from the available data, may include: Pankaj Patel, 67 years (born 1951), the Executive Chairman of Cadila Healthcare and Basudeo Narain Singh,  reportedly 77 years of age, currently the Executive Chairman at Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Let me hasten to add, these names are absolutely illustrative, and not intended to be specific to individuals, in any way.

All publicly listed companies and not privately held:

The companies that I have quoted above, both global and local, are publicly listed companies. Thus, their ownership is dispersed among the general public in many shares of stock, which are freely traded on a stock exchange, or in over the counter markets. In view of this, the general questions come up:

  • Why the incumbent CEO can’t develop a successor from within or even outside the company during his/her tenure spanning over so many years?
  • Is there any other underlying reason for the same? If so, what it is?

Not considering the country-heads of MNCs in India:

Let me admit upfront with all due respect, for the purpose of this discussion, I am not considering the country-heads of pharma MNCs in India. This is mainly because, they don’t fall in the same category as the CEOs of Indian publicly listed pharma companies, having much broader global responsibility, commensurate authority and accountability.

At the most, the country heads of pharma MNCs may be compared with those managers who are in charge of only India, or South Asia operations of the domestic pharma players. Which is why, country heads of MNCs are commonly called ‘General Managers’ – internally, especially by their respective headquarters.

Is mandatory CEO retirement policy a good idea?

There are many studies on whether a mandatory CEO retirement policy is a good idea. I shall quote below one such important study to illustrate the point.

‘Should Older CEOs Be Forced to Retire?’ That’s the title of an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on February 15, 2016. The author found that more than a third of S&P 500 firms have a mandatory retirement policy for their CEOs. The aim is to drive out executives who are past their prime. In the overall perspective, the HBR article is in sync with the idea.

Referring to a research paper recently published in the Journal of Empirical Finance, the above article highlighted some important findings of the researchers, as below:

  • Older CEOs were less “active,” as measured by a mix of hiring, firing, mergers, joint ventures, and more.
  • Mandatory retirement helped firms avoid the declining performance associated with older CEOs.
  • The negative correlation between CEO age and firm performance disappeared in companies with mandatory CEO retirement policies.
  • Mandatory retirement seemed to be helping firms with older CEOs to avoid the under-performance trap.
  • Length of CEOs’ executive experience plays a great role in a company’s financial success.
  • When there are two CEO candidates, both having requisite experience of equal number of years, the data suggests the younger one should be preferred.
  • Conversely, when there are two CEO candidates of the same age, bet on the one who’s been with the firm longer.

Should CEO retire at the peak of his/her golden era? 

This issue seems to be a contentious one. Be that as it may, about one third of S&P 500 firms have mandatory retirement policies for their CEOs. The goal is to systematically let go of leaders who are past their peak performance years.

An article published in The Washington Post on September 27, 2018 came with a headline: ‘Fewer companies are forcing CEOs to retire when they hit their golden years.’ It observed: ‘Sometimes a mandatory retirement age is lifted to give the current chief executive a little more time on the job, potentially clearing the way for a successor to prepare. For instance, in June 2017, manufacturing giant 3M said its board of directors was waiving the mandatory retirement age of 65 for its then-CEO, Inge Thulin, and then named a successor, chief operating officer Michael Roman, earlier this year.’

While retirement norms may be shifting, there’s seems to be a trend of indirect pressure on companies to add younger executives and directors to the board. This is primarily prompted by a growing demand for digital insights and technology experience in the CEO position – commented another article published in the Los Angeles Times on September 28, 2018. It also reported, many experts on corporate governance and executive succession believe that rescinding its policy requiring the CEO to retire at the age of 65, Merck & Co, ‘added to a long downward trend in the companies that have mandatory retirement ages for their top executives.’

Conclusion:

Regardless of whether a mandatory CEO retirement policy is a good idea or not, the aging high performing CEO’s desire to continue with the job for an indefinite period, has some downsides. It could thwart aspiration of similar high performing younger direct reports of the CEO. They include especially those who are ready to take charge and catapult the organization to a greater height of success, sooner.

A CEO’s desire to continue with the job, even after a generally accepted age of retirement, could also adversely impact a well-charted succession planning process for the top position. A time-bound succession plan is essential not only for a natural and smooth transition in the CEO position of an organization, but also to address any unforeseen emergency, such as a ‘drop dead like situation.’

Further, if there is no mandatory CEO retirement policy, or even rescinding it when there is one for a high a performing CEO, why there should be such policy for other C-suite, or many other important leadership positions of the same organization, with similar performance records?

One of the reasons behind a high performing aging CEO or an Executive Chairman not wanting to retire may also include the intent of the Board members to play safe. Nevertheless, it is a complicated and contentious issue. Regardless of whatever reasons lead to such a situation, the point to ponder is: What signal does it send to other high performing leaders? Does it convey, even the CEO is governed by similar policies as applied to other leaders of the corporation? Or, it smacks of a a discretionary corporate culture of governance? There is a need to ferret out a robust answer to this question – for a long-term sustainable success of any organization, including pharma.

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.

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Posted on by
Reply

On February 10, 2015, a leading business daily of India, quoted the Commerce Secretary of India – Rajeev Kher, saying, “India needs to relook at its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy with a view to bring in a differentiated regime for sectors that have a greater manufacturing potential.”

In the present Government regime, it appears virtually impossible to make such important comments out of turn by a senior bureaucrat without the blessings of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). I hold this view, despite the fact that the Commerce Secretary reportedly added that his suggestion is “a highly controversial subject and if I discussed this in the government, I think I will be shot down in the very first instance”.

Be that as it may, as I indicated in my just previous article, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that the Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

As I had indicated in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New ”National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, these speculations originated mainly from the following events:

  • During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.
  • Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

Speculations arising out of these two events were almost simultaneously fuelled by the following developments:

A. US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns.”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents.”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area.”

B. Union Minister of Commerce and Industry of India specifically seeking American Government’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

Keeping these in perspective, let me try to explore whether or not it would be fair for India deciding to put in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In this article, I shall deliberate on my personal take on ‘Patent Linkage’ and in the next week’s article on ‘Data Exclusivity’.

Definition:

Patent linkage is broadly defined as the practice of linking market approval for generic medicines to the patent status of the originator reference product.

A brief background in India:

The ‘Patent Linkage’ saga has an interesting background in India. I would now try to capture the essence of it, as stated below.

About 7 years ago, probably prompted by intense lobbying by the Pharma MNCs, the then Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly informed the media, on April 28, 2008, the following:

“We (DCGI) are going to seek the list of the drugs from innovator companies that have received patent in India. Once we have the database of the drugs which have been granted patent, we will not give any marketing approval to their generic versions…The DCGI has issued internal guidelines to this effect and it will also co-ordinate with the health ministry to give a formal shape to the initiative. The government expects to finalize a proper system within the next 2-3 months.”

It was also reported in the same article that Patent attorney Pratibha Singh, who along with Arun Jaitley was representing Cipla in the Tarceva case against Roche said:

“The DCGI does not have the authority to reject marketing application of a generic drug on the grounds that an innovator company has received the patent for the same drug in the country.”

Immediately following the above reported announcement of the DCGI on ‘Patent Linkage’, another media report flashed that the domestic drug companies are strongly objecting to the DCGI’s plans to link marketing approval for a drug with its patent status in the country, citing requirement of additional resources for the same and concern that it could block access to affordable medicines by suppressing competitive forces.

Despite this objection of the domestic Indian pharma companies, a senior official in DCGI office reportedly reaffirmed the DCGI’s intent of establishing the linkage so that no slips happen in the future. The same media report quoted that Government official as saying:

“We will have to amend the rules in the Act. We have to put it before the Drugs Consultative Committee first and this could be around the end of this year.”

Current ‘administrative’ status in India:

Currently in India, there is no provision for ‘Patent Linkage’, either in the Statute or through any administrative measure.

After those potboiler reports, it is quite challenging to fathom, what exactly had happened for the reverse swing thereafter at the DCGI’s office. The bottom line is, the above initiative of the then DCGI for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India ultimately got killed in the corridors of power. Hence, there does not exist any direct or indirect measure for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India, as I write this article.

Current legal status:

In 2008 Bayer Corporation had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against Union of India, the DCGI and Cipla seeking an order that the DCGI should consider the patent status of its drug, Sorefenib tosylate, and refuse marketing approval to any generic versions of this drug.

It is worth mentioning, Sorefenib tosylate is used to treat renal cancer and was being reportedly sold in India by Bayer at Rs. 2,85,000 for 120 tablets for a monthly course of treatment.

The appeal in the Delhi High Court was filed against a judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat on 18 August 2009, rejecting Bayer’s attempt to introduce the patent linkage system in India through a court direction. But, in a landmark judgment on February 9 2010, a division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Bayer Corporation in this regard. Thereafter, Bayer Corporation moved Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court order.

However, in December 01, 2010, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Bayer Corporation against the February 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court of India ordered, since the Drugs Act does not confer power upon the DCGI to make rules regarding the ‘Patent Linkage’, any such attempt would constitute substantive ultra vires of the delegated power.

RTI helps to get the marketing approval status of drugs:

Currently relevant information on marketing approval application status of generic drugs are not available at the CDSCO website. Hence, some innovator companies have resorted to using Right To Information (RTI) Act to ferret out such details from the DCGI office and initiate appropriate legal measures for patent infringement, well before the generic version of the original drug comes to the market.

A middle ground:

In view of the above order of the Supreme Court, the government of India may try to seek a middle ground without amending any provision of the Patents Act, in any way.

Even avoiding the word ‘Patent Linkage’, the Ministry of Health can possibly help the pharma MNCs achieving similar goal, through administrative measures. It can instruct the DCGI to upload the ‘Marketing Approval’ applications status for various generic products in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) website. If for any patented drugs, applications for marketing approval of generic equivalents are made, the available information would enable the patent holder taking appropriate legal recourse for patent infringement, much before the drug is marketed at a heavily discounted price.

It is quite possible that the interested constituents had put requests for such administrative measures even before the earlier Government. As no tangible action has been taken even thereafter, the erstwhile Government probably felt, if introduced, such a system would adversely impact quick and early availability of the generic drugs in the market place.

Conclusion: 

I wrote an article on similar issue in my blog post of August 24, 2009 titled, “Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India.”

Taking all these into consideration, in my view, it is quite possible for the present Indian Government to resolve the core issue related to ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measure, without amending any Acts or breaching any case laws of the land.

In the present IPR imbroglio, the above administrative measure could well be a win-win solution for all.

It would help facilitating early judicial intervention by the patent holder in case of prima facie patent infringements, enabling the Government to send a clear reiteration that the patents granted to pharmaceutical products will be appropriately enforced and protected in 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.

With Free Medicines In, Would The New Government Revisit ‘Universal Health Coverage’ Soon?

Posted on by
Reply

Friday last, the new Union Health Minister Dr. Harsh Vardhan reportedly announced that the his ministry would soon start work on distributing free medicines through public hospitals across the country.

For this purpose the Minister would soon call a meeting of the State Health Ministers to integrate this policy with the National Health Mission (NHM). The said meeting will be held under the framework of the Central Council of Health (CCH), which also includes professional experts.

A commendable beginning:

This decision of Dr. Harsh Vardhan would revive a plan that the former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had promised in his Independence Day speech to the nation in 2012, but could not be implement due to paucity of adequate fund. Implemented effectively, the above scheme has the potential to significantly reduce the Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenditure on healthcare in India.

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting, expenditure on medicines still constitute the highest component of OoP expenses in OP care, though its percentage share has decreased from 71 percent in 2004 to 63 percent in 2012.  Similarly for IP care, the share of medicines in total OoP has also marginally decreased from 46 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in 2012.

However, it is worth noting that still 46 percent of patients seeking healthcare in public channels purchase medicines from private channels for non-availability. The new scheme hopefully would resolve this issue with sincerity, care and a sense of purpose.

For early success in this area, experts recommend that up and running Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan models of this scheme, which are most efficient and cost effective, should be replicated in rest of the states.

Recently announced drug procurement system through Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) after hard price negotiation with the manufacturers, and distribution of those drugs free of cost from the Government hospitals and health centers to the patients efficiently, could further add value to the process.

The cost and span:

Planning Commission estimated that a countrywide free generic drug program would cost Rs 28,560 Crore (roughly around US$ 5 Billion) during the 12th Five-Year Plan period. The Centre will bear 75 percent of the cost while the states would provide the rest. Under the previous government plan, 348 drugs enlisted in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) were to be provided free at 160,000 sub-centers, 23,000 Primary Health Centers, 5,000 community health centers and 640 district hospitals.

“Universal Health Coverage” – Still remains the holistic approach:

That said, despite its immense importance, “distribution of free medicines” still remains just one of the key elements of Universal Health Coverage (UHC). It is expected that the new government would take a holistic view on the UHC agenda, sooner, to provide comprehensive healthcare services, including preventive care, to all citizens of the country.

According to another recent media report, the new Health Minister has already expressed a different viewpoint on this subject. Dr. Harsh Vardhan has reportedly said:

“I am not in favor of taxpayers’ money being used to push a one-size-fits-all health policy. From this morning itself, I have started contacting public health practitioners to know their minds on what should be the road ahead.”

Without deliberating much on the roll out of UHC as of now, the Minister promised that the government would work to provide ‘health insurance coverage for all’ through a National Insurance Policy for Health.

This statement is significant, because until recently, the ‘high level’ understanding was that the country, at least directionally, is in favor of public funded UHC, which was defined as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality (promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

The groundwork started with ‘The HLEG Report‘ :

Just to recapitulate, in October 2010, the Planning Commission of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on UHC under the chairmanship of Dr. Prof. K. Srinath Reddy, President of the ‘Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI)’. The group was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

HLEG in its submission had suggested that the entire scheme would be funded by the taxpayers’ money for specified sets of healthcare services and for additional services commensurate health insurance coverage may be purchased by the individuals. Accordingly, to ensure a modest beginning of the UHC, in the 12th Five Year Plan Period, public expenditure on health was raised to 2.5 percent of the GDP.

UHC guarantees access to essential free health services for all:

Because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learnt from within India, as well as other developed and developing countries of the world.

The proposal underscored that UHC will ensure guaranteed access to essential health services for every citizen of India, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

UHC provides options to patients:

Under the proposed UHC, all citizens of India would be free to choose between public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services. It was envisaged that people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes.

What exactly is the new Health Minister mulling?

If the new Health Minister is mulling something different to provide similar healthcare coverage to Indians, let me now explore the other options adopted by various nations in this area.

As we know, UHC is a healthcare system where all citizens of a country are covered for the basic healthcare services. In many countries UHC may have different system types as follows:

  • Single Payer: The government provides insurance to all citizens.
  • Two-Tier: The government provides basic insurance coverage to citizens and allows purchase of additional voluntary insurance whenever a citizen wants to.
  • Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that insurance must be bought by all its citizens, like what happened in the USA in 2010 under ‘Obamacare’.

The Global scenario:

As per published reports, all 33 ‘developed nations’ (OECD countries) have UHC in place. America was the only exception, till President Barack Obama administration implemented its ‘path breaking’ healthcare reform policy in 2010 against tough political opposition.

India is already too late in providing UHC:

Based on an article titled, ‘ Analyzing our economy, government policy and society through the lens of cost-benefit’ published in ‘True Cost’, following is the list that states in which countries the UHC is currently in place and from when:

Country Start Date of Universal Health Care System Type
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier
United States 2010 Insurance Mandate

In-sync with the concept, probably with different means:

From the above statement of the new Health Minister, it appears that to provide healthcare coverage to all citizens of India, his ministry would work towards developing a National Health Insurance Policy. He also expressed that his ministry wants to focus on preventive healthcare.

Preventive healthcare being an integral part of UHC, it could well be that Dr. Harsh Vardhan wants to follow ‘Single Payer’ type of UHC system type.

Another school of thought:

However, another school of thought opines that a government owned efficient public healthcare system with adequate infrastructural facilities provides healthcare to patients almost free of cost as compared to the “insurance mandated” one.

This is mainly because, to address respective healthcare needs currently the patients have either or a mix of the following two choices:

  • Use public health facilities: Available virtually at free of cost if accessible, but quality is mostly questionable.
  • Use private health facilities: Virtually unregulated, much better services, though available mostly at high to very high cost.

Thus, these groups of experts believe that provision of universal health insurance for treatment at the expensive private facilities may not be cost effective even for the government, if these are not adequately regulated with appropriate stringent measures.

In absence of all those measures, the new Health Minister could consider taking a decision in favor of tax-funded UHC, with appropriate budgetary provisions and investments towards improving country’s healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanism for all.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, there is not even an iota of doubt that India needs ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’, like any OECD or other countries of the world for its citizens, sooner. Just distributing free medicines through public hospitals across the country for all, without a holistic approach such as UHC, may not yield desired results.

From the initial deliberations of Dr. Harsh Vardhan, it appears that UHC would soon not just be revisited, but receive a new thrust too, from the no-nonsense minister, probably leaning more towards private participation than with a public funded one, contrary to what was proposed by the HLEG.

Does it matter really? Well…

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.

Why Try To Reinvent The Wheel With So Much Of Hullabaloo?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent IMS study, apparently ‘authorized’ (whatever it means) by the Planning Commission of India has reportedly suggested various ‘ways to make drugs affordable in India’.

Though there does not appear to be anything new in the reported suggestions, the well publicized report could manage to snatch an eye-catching media headline: “Patented Drugs Cheaper, but Less Affordable Here”, for whatever may be the reason.

I wish I had an access to the full report for further enlightenment in this area.

Was this ‘authorized’ study necessary at all in the first place?

If the study were related to improving access to medicines in India, several questions would naturally come up, as follows:

  • What does “The study authorized by the Planning Commission” mean? Has the Planning Commission paid from the taxpayers’ money to get this avoidable study done? Or, has the study been done free of cost, as a favor extended to the Planning Commission of India on the issue, in lieu of authorization of the commission for quoting its name in the report?

Following the due process, it would not difficult to unravel whether the Government has made any payment for the study or not.

  • However, assuming that this study was done free of cost, it will be interesting to know what prompted the Planning Commission to even consider to reinvent the wheel with this new IMS study.
  • The reason being, the comprehensive report on the ‘Universal Health Care (UHC)’ dated November 2011 prepared by the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG), chaired by the Chief of the ‘Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), Dr. Professor K. Srinath Reddy, is already pending before the Commission for giving shape to it working with all the concerned ministries. It is worth mentioning that the Planning Commission of India also had commissioned the HLEG study.
  • Instead of taking the UHC initiative forward, along with, hopefully, an expedited action of the Department of Pharmaceuticals to put in place a robust mechanism for patented drugs pricing, wasting time by moving in circles on the part of the Planning Commission in search of probably yet another ‘Eureka’ type report, would cost a great deal to the healthcare system of India. On the contrary, from the news report it appears that the findings or suggestions made in the IMS report are rather mundane, far from being anywhere near ‘Eureka’ type by any imaginable yardstick.

HLEG already charted the pathway for UHC in India:

The HLEG report has defined the UHC as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality (promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

Ten principles for UHC in India:

Following are the ‘Ten Principles’, which guided the HLEG to formulate its recommendations for the UHC in India:

  • Universality
  • Equity
  • Non-exclusion and non-discrimination
  • Comprehensive care that is rational and of good quality
  • Financial protection
  • Protection of patients’ rights that guarantee appropriateness of care, patient choice, portability and continuity of care
  • Consolidated and strengthened public health provisioning
  • Accountability and transparency
  • Community participation
  • Putting health in people’s hands

HLEG study guarantees access to essential free health services for all:

Because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learned from within India as well as other developed and developing countries of the world.

UHC will ensure guaranteed access to essential health services for every citizen of India, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

Under UHC all citizens of India will be free to choose between Public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services.

It is envisaged that people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes 

Another Planning Commission commissioned report on procurement and distribution of medicines:

Another working group of the Planning Commission on health, constituted for the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) headed by the then Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Mr. K. Chandramouli, had also submitted its report to the Commission.

The Part II of the report titled, “Provisions of ’free medicines for all in public health facilities …” recommends that health being a state subject, all the state governments of the country should adopt the successful and well proven Tamil Nadu model of healthcare procurement.

Tamil Nadu government through Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation (TNMSC) reportedly makes bulk purchases of drugs and pharmaceuticals directly from the manufacturers through a transparent bidding process, which reduces the cost of medicines to 1/10th and even to 1/15th of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the respective product packs.

As per this report, the total running cost of procurement and distribution for the ‘Free Medicines for All’ project during the 12th plan period would be Rs. 28,675 Crore and an additional allocation of Rs. 1,293 Crore will be required as one time capital costs. The contribution of the Central Government at 85 percent of the total cost would be around Rs 25,667 Crore for the entire Plan period.

Conclusion:

In July 2012, while talking on the above K Srinath Reddy Committee report on UHC, which suggests universal health insurance coverage, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia had reportedly said that the health sector of India would anyway receive a major shot in the arm in the 12th five-year plan with a budgetary allocation of 2 percent of GDP during the plan period. He also articulated that the country’s focus would be on cost-effective treatment and healthcare. For this, there would be a huge demand for human resources in the medical sector.

In the above backdrop, when two such excellent recent reports, commissioned earlier by the Planning Commission itself on improving access to affordable healthcare in India, are still pending before it for initiation of meaningful action with public knowledge, it is difficult to fathom what prompted the necessity for yet another Planning Commission ‘authorized’ study on similar area, with no seemingly earthshaking findings, as detailed in the media report.

This brings me back to where I started from, why is this particular attempt by the Planning commission to ‘Reinvent The Wheel’, yet again, and that too with so much of a hullabaloo, instead of diligently acting on the well crafted pending ones?

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.