Tag Archives: status

Just 16% Of Indian Population Has Access To Free Or Partially-Free Health Care?

Posted on by
Reply

Is health care currently a low priority area for the Government of India? Probably yes, and thus it is worth trying to fathom it out.

Besides planned frugal spending on overall public health in 2015-16, even as compared to the past trend, two other health related budgetary decisions of the Government are indeed baffling, at the very least.

As many of you, I too know that the incumbent Government in its first full-year budget of 2015-16 has sharply reduced the budgetary allocation on many important health related other projects, such as:

- Union budget allocation for the National Rural Drinking Water Program (NRDWP) that aims at providing safe drinking water to 20,000 villages and hamlets across India, has been drastically reduced this year. Curiously, this decision has been taken at a time, when India loses 200 million person days and Rs 36,600 crore every year due to water-related diseases.

- The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme, which provides food, preschool education, and primary health care to children under 6 years of age and their mothers, has also been hit by a 54.19 percent budget cut this year. This decision too of cutting public expenditure on food, nutrition and health care for children to more than half, defies any logic, especially when 40 percent of growth stunted children in the world are reportedly from India, exceeding the number of even sub-Saharan Africa.

I hasten to add that the Union budget 2015-16 has indicated, as the states’ share in the net proceeds of the union tax revenues has increased, as per recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission, these central Government programs will now be run with a changed funding pattern between the Union and states. However, according to financial experts in these areas, regardless of devolution, the total money available to run these critical projects is sharply decreasing.

That said, on the other pages of the same Union Budget, public funding in the current fiscal year for bridges and roads has more than doubled. The budgetary allocation for these two areas now stands more than even education.

I deliberated on similar subject of access to health care in my blog of March 16, 2015, titled, “With Frugal Public Resource Allocation Quo Vadis Healthcare in India?”

Health care sector is important for job creation too:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), health care sector is one of the largest job creators, not just in India, but globally. Thus, Indian health care industry being one of the fastest growing industrial turf in the country with a reasonable base, deserves a sharper focus of the Government.

Additionally, the socio-economic benefits that this sector provides in creating a sustainable, healthy and highly productive work force, has been well documented and can’t just be wished away, in any case.

The neglect is intriguing:

Currently, total healthcare spend of India is no more than 4.2 percent of the GDP with public spending being just 1.2 percent of it. Other BRICS nations are way ahead of India, in this area too. To set a direction on country’s public healthcare spend, breaking the jinx of a long period of time, the draft National Health Policy 2015 of the Government aimed at initial increase in health expenditure to 2 percent of the GDP.

As a result of the legacy of neglect over a long period of time, which continues albeit more blatantly even today, only 16 percent of the Indian population declares today that they have access to free or partially-free health care. I shall dwell on this area subsequently in this article.

Keeping these in perspective, it was intriguing, when the union budgetary allocation for health care in 2015-16 was kept at Rs. 297 billion or U$4.81 billion for its main health department, almost the same outlay as in the previous budget.

When compared against public fund allocations, such as, US$ 93 billion for highway projects or US$ 7.53 billion for 100 smart cities in the country, one will get a realistic perspective of this meager health budget allocation, in terms of effectively addressing the health care needs of around 1.25 billion people of India. Over 70 percent of this population live in the hinterland.

Agreed that the Government focus on these ‘infrastructure projects’ are not unimportant by any means. Nevertheless, the above comparison only highlights how much priority the Government assigns to the health care sector of India and for the health of its citizens. This issue assumes even greater significance in combating several challenging health situations, such as, ongoing fight against increasing incidence of life-long chronic ailments and deadly life-threatening diseases like, cancer, fueling already high rate of morbidity and mortality in the high country.

A quick glimpse on a few outcomes of neglect:

The Working Paper No. 1184 dated January 8, 2015, titled “Improving Health Outcomes And Health Care In India” of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), highlights some interesting points, as follows:

  • Chronic diseases are the biggest causes of death and disability accounting for 50 percent of deaths, with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, respiratory conditions and cancers figuring most prominently.
  • Preventive interventions such as improving access to a clean water supply, reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS through better sexual education, and vaccination campaigns for other diseases will each deliver more significant returns in life years.
  • Vaccination rates for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, for measles and for hepatitis B are all much lower than in OECD and peer countries.
  • Minimal access to free or partially-free health care.

It is an irony that ‘life expectancy’ in India still remains well below the countries at a similar level of development.

Abysmal overall hygienic conditions:

The OECD survey brings to the fore  abysmal hygienic conditions still prevailing in India. It can only be improved through active intervention of the Government with necessary budgetary allocations, sans photo ops for some celebrities and most politicians. Sincere support and participation of the civil society and intelligentsia, in general, are also equally important.

The paper underscores, among others, the following extremely unhygienic conditions still prevailing both in urban and rural India:

  • Most households in rural India do not defecate in a toilet or latrine, which leads to infant and child diseases (such as diarrhea) and can account for much of the variation in average child height. Even today the sight of poor children defecating openly in the streets, that too in a city like Mumbai, is also not very uncommon.
  • The burning of solid fuels in particular (undertaken by more than 80 percent of the population in cooking) is a major risk factor behind ischemic heart disease, lower-respiratory tract infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and could also increase cataracts and stroke.
  • Exposure to air pollution is a significant problem.
  • Many of the poor continue to smoke heavily.
  • 11 of the lowest income quintile did not undertake sufficient physical activity, compared with 16 percent in the highest income quintile.

India provides minimal access to free or partially-free health care:

As I mentioned above, India provides minimal access to free or partially-free healthcare to its citizens, as compared to all the BRICS nations, many other countries in South East Asia and even in Africa.

The above OECD paper states that with poor health intertwined with poverty, the greatest gains lie with policies that address the social conditions which enable combating communicable and non-communicable diseases.

Among BRICS countries, India provides least access to ‘Free or Partially-Free Health Care’ Services to its general population. This is despite being the largest democracy in the world, which is now striving hard to emerge as an economic and military superpowers.

The following study shows that only 16 percent of the Indian population declares having access to free or partially-free health care from the government:

BRICS Countries % surveyed said ‘Yes’ to the question: “Does your household have access to free or partially free health care from the State”
India 16
Brazil 24
China 73
Russia 96
South Africa 62

Source: Credit Suisse Research Institute, Emerging Consumer Survey Databook 2014.

As the OECD paper states, in this study approximately 1500 respondents were surveyed in each country, with India and China both having larger sample size of 2500. The male-to-female split between respondents was roughly 50:50 in all cases with rural-to-urban split varying by country.

Poor satisfaction level with existing health care services:

This is very important; as public facilities are the predominant source of qualified health professionals in rural areas where much of the Indian poor reside. In addition, significant population growth is occurring in urban slums, where urban public health care facilities are struggling to provide basic services. In a situation like this, slum dwellers face challenging economic barriers to accessing expensive private health care services (MoHFW, 2012).

The OECD survey indicates that 41 percent of those in rural areas and 45 percent in urban areas were not satisfied with treatment by their doctors or facility.

The reason attributed to this dissatisfaction are as follows:

  • Distance was cited by 21 percent of people in rural areas and 14 percent in urban areas.
  • Public health care centers remain closed more than half the time and lack basic medical supplies, such as stethoscopes and blood pressure scales.
  • Non-availability of required services was cited by 30 percent of people in rural areas and 26 percent in urban areas.

This is quite credible, as according to the Government’s own estimates:

- 10 percent of primary health care centers are without a doctor

- 37 percent are without a laboratory technician

- 25 percent without a pharmacist (MoHFW, 2012)

The above picture is quite consistent with large scale surveys in poor communities of India, by OECD.

Health care business for up market is booming:

Growing inequitable distribution of healthcare products and services is now wide open and blatant, more than ever before. There is no signal yet that the Government would soon consider health care sector as its one of the key focus areas, along with education, just as infrastructure, such as, building roads, highways, e-highways, flyovers, bridges and smart cities.

For up-market patients, the private sector is creating world class facilities in India. We can see today a good number of ‘five-star’ hospitals, with more number of newer ones coming up offering jaw-dropping facilities, quite akin to, may be even surpassing what are being offered for patients’ luxurious comfort in the developed world. Although these facilities cost a fortune, one would usually need to be in a queue to get admitted there for any medical or surgical treatment.

Most of these hospitals are now in high demand for ‘medical tourism’. According to available reports India currently caters to health care needs of over 200,000 foreign patients. ‘Medical tourism’ business reportedly fetched around US$ 2 billion to India in 2012.

On the flip side of it, as we all read in the recent media reports, some of these hospitals in Delhi refused admission even to seriously ill dengue patients, as they can’t afford such facilities. A few of these patients ultimately succumbed to the disease and the parents of one such poor child, who died without any hospital treatment in that process, committed suicide unable to withstand the irreparable and tragic loss.

Giving ‘Infrastructure Status’ to health care sector:

When creating basic infrastructure is the priority area of the present Government for financial resource allocation, why not give ‘infrastructure status’ to the health care sector now? This is not just for the heck of it, but purely based on merit and earlier detail evaluation by a Government Committee of experts.

To address the critical health care needs for the vast Indian population with appropriate infrastructure, quality products, services and manpower, providing ‘infrastructure status’ to the health care sector could facilitate the whole process. Additionally, it can transform the Indian healthcare sector as one of the biggest job-generating industry too.

This has been a key demand of the industry until recently, though not so much being talked about it today. A few years back, the previous Government was reportedly mulling to assign full fledged infrastructure status to the healthcare sector, as it merits inclusion in the category of ‘infrastructure’, satisfying all the nine criteria set by the erstwhile Rangarajan Committee.

I find in my archive, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) also demanded ‘infrastructure status’ for the health care sector in its pre-union budget memorandum for 2010-11. In that proposal CII had estimated that health care industry in India requires an investment of around US$80 billion, whereas in the current fiscal year the public expenditure on health still languishes at U$4.81 billion.

This specific issue seems to have taken a back seat today, for reasons not known to me. However, it is interesting to note that not just the Government apathy, no such demand is being made today by the large multi-industry trade associations of India, as vociferously as we witness, for example, in the case of ‘The Goods and Service Tax (GST) Bill’.

Health care debate is not to the fore today:

Critical health care issues of the country don’t seem to be in the fore front today for comprehensive debates even for the Indian main stream media, to influence the government.

We have been experiencing for quite while that Indian media, including social media, in general, usually goes ballistic 24×7 mostly with selective sensational topics. These may include, among others…glitzy events on Government’s high profile advocacy initiatives to attract more Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from large overseas companies…Or back home some unfortunate and tragic Dengue fever related deaths due to negligence just in Delhi, though the same and equally grave incidences taking place in the other states of India, are hardly getting any coverage…Or on some high profile alleged murder pot-boilers announcing media verdict conclusively, even before completion of police investigation and charge-sheet being filed in a court of law.

These are probably neither bad, nor unimportant, nor avoidable, nor can come within the ambit of any media criticism. I am also not trying to do that, either.

As the saying goes, variety is the spice of life. We, therefore, generally want to get a feel of it everyday early in the morning, mostly glancing through the newspaper headlines, or in the late evening watching impatient anchor with strong personal opinion trying hard to dominate over all other participants in high-decibel ‘TV debates’, as these are called by the respective channels.

In an era of sensationalized and eye-ball grabbing ‘Breaking News’ of all kinds, flashing everywhere almost every now and then, critical health care issues seem to have become a mundane subject to the newsmakers for any meaningful debate to influence the Government. Serious debates on critical health care issues presumably would not generate all important Television Rating Points (TRPs) to the TV channel owners. Though I have no idea, the TRP of such debates  probably has been estimated to be even lesser as compared to the cacophony aired by the TV channels on the cost to exchequer for the MPs subsidized meals in the Indian Parliament…with intermittent high pitch ‘war cry’ of the dominating anchor… ‘the nation wants to know this’.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, health care environment impacts all of us, quite appreciably. There is not even an iota of doubt on it. However, we can feel it mostly when the reality hits us or our families hard…very hard, as serious and cruel ailments strike suddenly, or as we face avoidable disease related deaths of our near and dear ones, or when illness makes a loving one virtually incapacitated, even after facing financial bankruptcy.

Health care is a serious matter for all of us, just as it is a serious and critical business for every nation and every Government. This criticality factor is independent of whatever level of economic development the country is aspiring for. Thus, the indifference of the Indian Government, if I may say so, despite promising so much on health care earlier this year, is intriguing, and more so, when just 16 percent of the total population has access to free or partially-free health care in our India of the 21st century.

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.

Robust implementation of Biosimilar Guidelines could help India earn leadership status in ‘Biosimilar World’

Posted on by
Reply

Across the world, biologic drugs, in general, have a successful record in treating many life threatening and other complicated ailments. Expiration of product patents of the first major group of originators’ biologic molecules has led to the development of products that are designed to be ‘similar’ to the originators’ products, as it is virtually impossible to replicate any protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs.

These are known as ‘Follow-on Biologics’ or more commonly ‘Biosimilar Drugs’, which rely in part, on prior information obtained from the innovators’ products and demonstration of similarity with the originator’s molecule based on detailed and comprehensive product characterization, for their marketing approval.

The bedrock: 

India seems to have a good potential to become one of the key players in the development and manufacture of biosimilar drugs, not only to serve the needs of the local population, but also for exports to large developed and other developing markets. However, for this dream to materialize science-driven ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ are absolutely necessary and should form the bedrock in the development process of all such drugs.

Paving the way: 

These guidelines will provide a regulatory framework or pathway to ensure that biosimilar Drugs approved in India are of good quality and demonstrably similar in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to the original reference products.

Paving the way for such regulatory framework in the country with comprehensive sets of guidelines is of utmost importance, especially in the light of prevailing sub-optimal pharmacovigilance system in India.

Setting ground rules: 

Considerable developments have occurred across the globe in the scientific and regulatory understanding of biosimilar drugs. Nearly all developed nations and many developing countries have now defined or in the process of defining appropriate regulatory framework for the same.

However, due to lack of such guidelines in India, until recently, there have been instances of so called ‘biosimilar drugs’ being approved for marketing, reportedly with sub-optimal testing and dossiers, thereby putting into question the product quality, comparability and patient safety.

With the above backdrop, the Ministries of Health & Family Welfare and the Science and Technology have now set the ground rules and released India’s first “Guidelines on Similar Biologics: Regulatory Requirements for Marketing Authorization in India”. These Guidelines are already in place effective September 15, 2012.

A step in the right direction: 

Long awaited new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ of India, demonstrating an overall similarity in the philosophy and approach with the those in the U.S and Europe, though a belated move by the Government, but certainly a step in the right direction.

The global potential:

In most of the developed countries, besides regulatory issues, biosimilar drugs are considered to be a threat to fast growing high value innovative global biotech industry.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to effectively address the global concern for cheaper and more affordable biologic medicines for patients across the world. To achieve this objective, relatively smaller biotech companies, given the required wherewithal  at their disposal, could emerge as winners in this new ball game as compared to traditional generic pharmaceutical players.

Biosimilar drugs will, therefore, have immense global potential to improve access to life saving biologic medicines for the ailing population across the continents.

First ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the US: 

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

Having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Despite this event, very few people at that time expected the US FDA to put regulatory guidelines in place for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world.

Global initiatives:

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

Following are the examples of some relatively recent biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players:

  • Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million in cash. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.

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

In India: 

  • Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) has already been marketing a biosimilar version of Rituxan of Roche since 2007.
  • Reliance Life Science is also a potential player in the biosimilar market, though it has reportedly faced a setback in Europe with the regulators asking for more data for its version of EPO prompting them to withdraw their application for now.

Many other developments are also taking place in tandem in the space of biosimilar drugs, the world over. To fetch maximum benefits out of this emerging opportunity, as mentioned above, India has already started taking steps to tighten its regulatory process for marketing approval of such drugs. This is absolutely necessary to allay general apprehensions on drug safety with inadequate clinical data for similar protein substances.

The global market:

According to Datamonitor the global market for biosimilars drugs is expected to grow from US$ 243 million in 2010 to around US $3.7 billion by 2015.

Another report points out that only in the top two largest pharmaceutical markets of the world, the USA and EU, sales of biosimilar drugs will record a turnover of US$ 16 billion in the next couple of years when about 60 biotech products will go off-patent. 

Major Indian players:

Such a lucrative business opportunity in the western world is obviously attracting many Indian players, like, Biocon, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Shantha Biotech, Reliance Life Science etc., who have already acquired expertise in the development of biosimilar drugs like, erythropoietin, insulin, monoclonal antibodies, interferon-alpha, which are not only being marketed in India, but are also exported to other non/less-regulated markets of the world.

Ranbaxy in collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is engaged in global development of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (GCSF) formulations. Wockhardt is expected to enter into the global biosimilar drugs market shortly. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Biocon are also preparing themselves for global development and marketing of insulin products, GCSF and streptokinase formulations. 

The domestic market:

According to IMS Health March 2012, the biosimilar drugs market in India is around US$ 700 million with the main categories being as follows:

Therapy Area US $ Million
Insulin 250
Hepatitis-B Vaccine 200
Heparin 70
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin 50

Moreover, as per available reports, till March 2012 about 91 clinical trials have been lined-up in India for 20 recombinant therapeutics, as approved by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee.

Brand proliferation offering wider choices: 

Currently there has been huge brand proliferation for biosimilar products in India with around 250 brands in 20 therapeutic areas. Some examples are as follows:

Therapy Area No. of Brands
Insulin 40
Erythropoietin 55
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin 48
Streptokinase 33
Interferon 10
Heparin 10

Increasing demand:

The demand of such drugs even in India is increasing at a rapid pace. The focus of the government on various immunization programs is also getting sharper simultaneously. For example, during 2011-12, the government spent around US$ 115 million for routine immunization covering reportedly about 25 million pregnant women and children and nearly US$ 140 million towards pulse polio vaccination initiatives. This trend, though may not still be enough for the size and scale of a country like India, but praiseworthy nonetheless.

The focus on Oncology: 

Within bio-pharmaceuticals many companies are targeting Oncology disease area, which is estimated to be the largest emerging segment with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion in 2010 growing over 17%.

As per recent reports about 8 million deaths take place all over the world every year only due to cancer. May be for this reason, the research pipeline for NMEs is dominated by oncology with global pharmaceutical majors’ sharp R&D focus and research spend being on this particular disease area.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched in the global markets by 2015.

Indian market for oncology products: 

Current size of the Indian oncology market is reportedly around US$ 75 million.

Biocon has launched its monoclonal antibody based drug BIOMAb-EGFR for treating solid tumors with intent to introduce this product in the western markets as soon as they can get necessary regulatory approvals. Similarly, Ranbaxy with its strategic collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is planning to market oncology products in various markets of the world like, Brazil, Mexico, CIS and Russia.

Government support: 

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has proposed funding of US$ 68 million for biosimilar drugs through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for the same.

Currently DBT spends reportedly around US$ 200 million annually towards biotechnology related projects. 

Areas of concern:

According to a research report from ‘The Decision Resources’, one of the key success factors for any such new biosimilar drugs, especially from India, will be how quickly the specialists accept them.

The report also noted a high level of concerns, if such drugs are not supported by robust sets of clinical data on the claimed treatment indications. To allay this concern robust implementation of the recent biosimilar guidelines in India will play a very critical role.

Conclusion: 

As the R&D based global innovator companies are expanding into the biosimilar space, many Indian domestic pharmaceutical companies are also poised to invest on biosimilars drugs development to fully encash the emerging global opportunities in this area. It is quite prudent for the Indian players to focus on the oncology therapy area, as it has now emerged as the fastest growing segment in the global pharmaceutical industry.

With around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent national and international regulatory standards, the domestic biosimilar players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for biosimilar drugs.

Experience in conformance to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside U.S, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India.

Having progressed thus far, with adequate additional investments for similar biologics and ensuring robust implementation of new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’, India has the potential to earn the leadership status even in the global biosimilar segment, just as it did in the generic pharmaceutical space of the world.

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.

India and China…Practical relevance of ‘Priority Watch List (PWL)’ status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ of America…and the REAL ‘Game Changers’

Posted on by
Reply

Many stakeholders around the world believe that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) environment in China is far better than what we have in India. Interestingly “2010 Special 301 Report” of the United States of America dated April 30, 2010, paints a totally different picture.

The priority watch list (PWL)’ countries:

The Office of The United States Trade Representative, in the Press Release of ’2010 Special 301 report’, mentioned the names of PWL countries as follows:
“Trading partners on the Priority Watch List (PWL) do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection. China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela are on the Priority Watch List. These countries will be the subject of particularly intense engagement through bilateral discussion during the coming year”.

It is, therefore, quite clear that so far as IPR environment is concerned both China and India feature in the PWL of America. This totally breaks the perceived myth, as is being very often made out to be by many, that China is a better implementer of IPR than India.
Reasons for featuring in the ‘Priority Watch List’ (PWL):
“2010 Special 301 Report” makes the following comments for China and India being in the PWL of the USA:

China:
1. China will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010 and will remain subject to Section 306 monitoring. China’s enforcement of IPR and implementation of its TRIPS Agreement obligations remain top priorities for the United States…the overall level of IPR theft in China remains unacceptable.
2. The United States is heartened by many positive steps the Chinese government took in 2009 with respect to these issues, including the largest software piracy prosecution in Chinese history, and an increase in the numbers of civil IP cases in the courts.
3. The United States is also deeply troubled by the development of policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders by promoting “indigenous innovation” including through, among other things, preferential government procurement and other measures that could severely restrict market access for foreign technology and products.
4. China’s IPR enforcement regime remains largely ineffective and non-deterrent.
5. The U.S. copyright industries report severe losses due to piracy in China.
6. Counterfeiting remains pervasive in many retail and wholesale markets.
7. China maintains market access barriers, such as import restrictions and restrictions on wholesale and retail distribution, which can discourage and delay the introduction into China’s market of a number of legitimate foreign products that rely on IPR.
8. China’s market access barriers create additional incentives to infringe products.
9. China adopts policies that unfairly advantage domestic or “indigenous” innovation over foreign innovation and technologies.
10. Draft Regulations for the Administration of the Formulation and Revision of Patent-Involving National Standards, released for public comment in November 2009 by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), raise concerns regarding their expansive scope, the feasibility of certain patent disclosure requirements, and the possible use of compulsory licensing for essential patents included in national standards.
11. With respect to patents, on October 1, 2009, the Third Amendment to China’s Patent Law, passed in December 2008, went into effect. While many provisions of the Patent Law were clarified and improved, rights holders have raised a number of concerns about the new law and implementing regulations, including the effect of disclosure of origin requirements on patent validity, inventor remuneration, and the scope of and procedures related to compulsory licensing, among other matters. The United States will closely follow the implementation of these measures in 2010.
12. The United States encourages China to provide an effective system to expeditiously address patent issues in connection with applications to market pharmaceutical products.
13. The United States continues to have concerns about the extent to which China provides effective protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products.
14. Generally, IPR enforcement at the local level is hampered by poor coordination among Chinese government ministries and agencies, local protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for initiating investigations and prosecuting criminal cases, lack of training, and inadequate and non-transparent processes. As in the past, the United States will continue to review the policies and enforcement situation in China at the sub-national levels of government.

India:
1. India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010.
2. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR.
3. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts.
4. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol.
5. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings.
6. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy.
7. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement.
8. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem.
9. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents.
10. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery.
11. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.
12. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes.
13. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year.

Responses and reactions in India:
‘Special 301 Reports’ have always been received with skepticism both by the Government of India and the domestic media. Even in the past, PWL status has hardly bothered either India or China to bring in a radical change in the IPR environment of the respective countries, as desired by the USA.

A recent article on the ‘Special 301 Report 2010’ that appeared in ‘Business Standard’, Sunday, May 2, 2010 comments as follows:

“India, in fact, continues to be on the ‘priority watch list’ of the USTR’s ‘Special 301’ report, despite a detailed submission of the intellectual property rights (IPR) compliance measures initiated by it in 2009”.

Many stakeholders in India feel and have also articulated that despite the country taking important steps to improve implementation of IPR within the country, the position of India in ‘Special 301 Reports’ has not changed much since last so many years. India, therefore, envisages no harsh measures by the US Government as a result of being continuously in the PWL of the ‘Special 301 Reports’.

Why then China attracts more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) than India in the Pharmaceutical space?

In my view, this has got not much to do with the IPR environment in these two countries. The key ‘Game Changers’ for China, I reckon, are as follows:

1. Larger market size due to greater access to medicines:
Access to medicine in China covers 85% of their 1.2 billion population, against 35% of 1.1 billion population of India.

2. Larger market size due to better affordability of medicine:

Around 85% of the population in China is covered through various medicine price reimbursement schemes. Whereas in India around 78% of such expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ expenses. Conversely, not more than 22% of the population is currently covered by drug price reimbursement schemes in India.

3. Strong signals to the Government that ‘innovative companies’ are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the country:

In such a booming pharmaceutical market scenario, it is essential for the business to keep the government engaged to help create a more ‘innovative pharmaceutical business’ friendly environment, where even a slight improvement in the prevailing IPR conditions will give a significant boost to their business performance.

IMS forecasts that by 2013 China is going to be the third largest pharmaceutical market in the world with an estimated turnover of US $66.7 billion against 13 ranking of India in the same league table, with an estimated turnover of US $15.5 billion.

Similar trend was observed in the immediate past, as well. As reported by IMS MAT September 2009, China registered a turnover of US $24 billion with 27.1% growth against US $7.7 billion with 12.9% growth of India, during the same period. IMS, based on their research data forecasts that during 2008-13 period, China will contribute 36% of the growth of the Asia Pacific Region, against 12% of India.

Under this situation, it appears quite prudent for the ‘innovative pharmaceutical companies’ to send signals to the Chinese Government that they are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the nation by making significant direct investments, obviously with an expectation to get more business friendly environment in that country.

Recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ in China has further improved its market attractiveness.

Thus the business attractiveness of China as a pharmaceutical market scores much higher than India, fetching more FDIs for them, prevailing IPR environment and PWL status in the ‘Special 301 Reports’ for the country not withstanding.

Conclusion:

Overall IPR environment in India, many experts strongly believe, does not seem to be much different from China, if not a shade better. While interacting with Chinese experts recently in that part of the world, I understand, ‘Data Protection’ is just ‘on paper’ in China, causing a huge issue for the innovator companies in that country. Similar situation prevails so far as the effectiveness of patent enforcement mechanism is concerned, where innovator companies are fighting and required to fight such infringement cases in the provincial level and in so many provinces of the country, posing a huge challenge to the patent holders.

So far as PWL status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ is concerned, it seems to have almost lost its relevance, as both India and China become stronger economies with increasing global dependence on them, consistently registering double digit or near double digit GDP growth.

In china, the pharmaceutical market attractiveness, its size and growth are driven by two key factors as mentioned above, viz, huge domestic market access/ penetration and better affordability of medicines through various effective medicine price re-imbursement schemes, across the country. The recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ of the country has added further momentum to this progress.

So long as India does not take robust policy measures, followed by their effective implementation to address, much ignored, the access and affordability issues of medicines for the common man, the country will continue to be a laggard, compared to China in the race of market leadership within the global pharmaceutical industry.

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.