Tag Archives: still

Access to affordable healthcare to 65% of Indian population still remains a key issue even after six decades of independence of the country.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite so much of stringent government control, debate and activism on the affordability of modern medicines in India, on the one hand, and the success of the government to make medicines available in the country at a price, which is cheaper than even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, on the other, the fact still remains, about 65% of Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medicines, as compared to just 15% in China and 22% in Africa.The moot question therefore arises, despite all these stringent price regulation measures by the government and prolonged public debates over nearly four decades to ensure better ‘affordability of medicines’, why then ‘access to modern medicine’ remained so abysmal to a vast majority of the population of India, even after sixty years of independence of the country?This vindicates the widely held belief that in India no single minister or ministry can be held accountable by the civil society for such a dismal performance in the access to healthcare in the country. Is it then a ‘system flaw’? May well be so.

Poor healthcare infrastructure:

As per the Government’s own estimate, India falls far short of its minimum requirements towards basic public healthcare infrastructure. The records indicate, as follows:

1. A shortage of 4803 Primary Health Centres (PHC)

2. A shortage of 2653 Community Health Centres (CHC)

3. No large Public Hospitals in rural areas where over 70% of the populations live

4. Density of doctors in India is just 0.6 per 1000 population against 1.4 and 0.8 per 1000 population in China and Pakistan respectively, as reported by WHO.

The Government spending in India towards healthcare is just 1.1% of GDP, against 2% of China and 1.6% of Sri Lanka, as reported by the WHO.

Some good sporadic public healthcare initiatives to improve access:

The government allocation around US$2.3 billion for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), is a good initiative to bring about uniformity in quality of preventive and curative healthcare in rural areas across the country.
While hoping for the success of NRHM, inadequacy of the current rural healthcare infrastructure in the country with about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals located only in the urban India may encourage the skeptics.

PPP to improve access to medicines:

At this stage of progress of India, ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ initiatives in the following four critical areas could prove to be very apt to effectively resolve this issue

1. PPP to improve affordability:

It appears that in earlier days, the policy makers envisaged that stringent drug price control mechanism alone will work as a ‘magic wand’ to improve affordability of medicines and consequently their access to a vast majority of Indian population.

When through stricter price control measures the access to medicines did not improve in any significant measure, the industry associations reportedly had jointly suggested to the government for a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model way back in December 2006. The comprehensive submission made to the government also included a proposal of extending ‘concessional price for government procurement’ under certain criteria.

In this submission to the government, the industry did not suggest total price de-regulation for the pharmaceutical industry of India. Instead, it had requested for extension of the price monitoring system of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’, which is currently working very effectively for over 80 percent of the total pharmaceutical industry in India. Balance, less than 20 percent of the industry, is currently under cost-based price control.

However, the argument of the NPPA against this suggestion of the pharmaceutical industry is that the market entry price of any formulation under the ‘price monitoring’ mechanism is not decided by the government. Hence without putting in place any proper price control/negotiation system to arrive at the market entry price of the price decontrolled formulations, the existing ‘price monitoring’ mechanism may not be as effective, as in future more and more high price patented non-schedule formulations are expected to be introduced in the market.

However, the government seems to have drafted a different drug policy, which has now been referred to a new Group of Ministers for approval. It is worth noting that to make the PPP proposal of the industry effective, the Ministry of Health, both at the centre and also at the state levels, will require to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercises in the primary and also in the secondary healthcare infrastructural facilities. FICCI is reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds for similar capacity building exercises.

Frugal budgetary allocation towards healthcare could well indicate that the government is gradually shifting its role from public healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to help building the required capacity. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure leave aside other financial incentives, could impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, as well.

2. PPP to leverage the strength of Information Technology (IT) to considerably neutralize the healthcare delivery system weaknesses:

Excellence in ‘Information Technology’ (IT) is a well recognized strength that India currently possesses. This strengths needs to be leveraged through PPP to improve the process weaknesses. Harnessing IT strengths, in the areas of drug procurement and delivery processes, especially in remote places, could hone the healthcare delivery mechanism, immensely.

3. PPP in ‘Telemedicine’:

‘‘Telemedicine” is another IT enabled technology that can be widely used across the nation to address rural healthcare issues like, distant learning, disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ailments.
Required medicines for treatment could be made available to the patients through ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), by properly utilising the Government controlled public distribution outlets like, ration shops and post offices, which are located even in far flung and remote villages of India.

4. PPP in healthcare financing for all:

Unlike many other countries, over 72 percent of Indian population pay out of pocket to meet their healthcare expenses.

While out of a population of 1.3 billion in China, 250 million are covered by insurance; another 250 million are partially covered and the balance 800 million is not covered by any insurance, in India total number of population who have some healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and the penetration of health insurance is just around 3.5% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China mainly due to their better response to healthcare needs of the country.

As the government has announced ‘Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ for the BPL families, an integrated and robust healthcare financing model for all, is expected to address the affordability issue more effectively.

According to a survey done by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 40% of the people hospitalised in India borrow money or sell assets to cover their medical expenses. A large number of population cannot afford to required treatment, at all.

Conclusion:

An integrated approach by creating effective healthcare infrastructure across the country, leveraging IT throughout the healthcare space and telemedicine, appropriately structured robust ‘Health Insurance’ schemes for all strata of society, supported by evenly distributed ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, deserve consideration of the government to improve access to affordable healthcare to a vast majority of population of the country, significantly.

Well researched PPP models in all these areas, involving the stakeholders, need to be effectively implemented, sooner, to address this pressing issue.

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.

Indian Patent offices (IPOs) have started showing improvement in their functioning; still lot of grounds to cover.

Posted on by
Reply

Indian Patent offices are located, with four clearly specified jurisdictions, at New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai.

Since last few years enough efforts have been made towards overall capacity building initiatives, training of personnel and digitalizing the huge databank of these offices, with wide scale application of information technology (IT). As a result the patent offices are now having almost a centralized database to provide online services to the users in various areas of their operations. Users are now having the facilities of not only online patent search, but also for online patent applications.

More extensive IT applications are required to achieve greater system efficiency and transparency:

However, to bring in more efficiency and transparency in the system, there is a need to introduce appropriate IT applications in all the transactional interfaces between the patent office personnel and the patent applicants.

Still there are lots of grounds to cover:

Following are the key areas which should be taken care of by the Controller General of Patents, Design and Trade marks (CGPDTM) to make the IPOs more efficient, transparent and effective:

1. The Patent Manual, which provides essential guidelines to the patent examiners to bring in uniformity in the patent application examination process, is long overdue.

2. Many patent applicants feel that there is a need to include the International Non-proprietary Names (INN) in the title of pharmaceutical patent applications by the IPO.

3. Inadequate bandwidth makes the IT system slow, reducing its operational efficiency.

4. Electronic-filing of patent applications has been introduced, but there is no facility of paying the fees online by credit card. This facility should be introduced to make it more convenient for applicants to file patent applications online, adding more speed to the process.

5. Electronic prosecution of patent applications should be introduced to make the patent prosecution virtually paperless and more efficient.

6. Despite new technological measures most patent officers and also the public in general are still following the traditional method of filing the patent applications due to the ease and authenticity of filing records. To encourage applicants to file applications electronically, incentives such as reduced fees may be offered to those who file their applications electronically.

7. The IPOs should digitize all the physical files lying with them, so that file histories of each application are available online.

8. The Patent offices should have designated centres to provide assistance to applicants for filing or prosecuting applications.

9. Clear guidelines to be issued for conducting pre-grant and post grant opposition proceedings. Presently they are being handled in an arbitrary manner.

10. In order to introduce an efficient system of patent prosecution, it is recommended that the IPOs adjust patent term to compensate patentees for any delay in the grant of the patent that reduces the term of the patent, when such delay is caused solely by the IPOs.

11. Decision making and its communication to all concerned to be made faster at the IPOs. A system to be instituted for issuing the operative part of the decision first, followed by details of the decision taken. These should be advertised immediately in the technical journal to close proceedings at the earliest. Delays are leading to increase in the waiting period for the grant of patents, even if the proceedings have been concluded (opposition or otherwise) attracting serial and frivolous pre-grant oppositions. Such delays are also preventing the patent applicants to get their grants. As a result they are unable to initiate infringement proceedings against infringers quickly, defeating the very purpose of the patent system.

12. The timeline for an application, which will be taken up for examination, needs to be clearly defined. Currently, there is no time-line defined for taking up the applications for examination.

Conclusion:

All concerned will feel happy, if the DIPP in general and the CGPDTM in particular take note of these suggestions and formalize a process within the IPOs to address these important issues.

Growing discontentment of the past, in several areas of operation within the IPOs, is now being effectively addressed. However, the system still warrants more capacity building to enable the IPOs provide world class services to the patent applicants. This process needs to be expedited to further enhance the credibility of the new IPR regime in India.

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.

To prevent ‘counterfeit medicines’ from reaching the patients is the nation’s public health responsibility: Are we still in a denial mode to even accept the existence of this public health menace?

Posted on by
Reply
In November 7, 2009, Financial Express reported with a headline,”Generic drug companies see a bitter pill in counterfeit“, because some believe that it has an in-built intellectual property right connotation.
The dictionary definition:

The word ‘counterfeit’ may be defined as follows:

1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud

2. To carry on a deception; dissemble

4. To make fraudulent copies of something valuable

5. A fraudulent imitation.

What does Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act say?

May be for this reason the Drugs and cosmetics Act of India has specified that manufacturing or selling of the following types of drugs are punishable offence:

Section 17: Misbranded drugs

Section 17-A: Adulterated drugs

Section 17-B: Spurious drugs

No one has asked, so far, that as misbranding could involve trademark and design, why should it fall under Drugs and Cosmetics Act?

This was done in the past by the law makers because they believed that any attempt to deliberately and fraudulently pass off any drug as something, which it really is not, could create a serious public health issue, leading to even death.

Be that as it may, the pharmaceutical industry all over the world sincerely believes that counterfeit drugs involve heinous crime against humanity.

Definition of counterfeit drugs should cover the all types of medicines, which are not genuine:

Definition of counterfeit drugs should, therefore, cover the entire gamut of medicines, which are not genuine. Such medicines could be a fraudulent version of patented, generic or even traditional medicines and have nothing to do with patents or patent infringements.

At the same time it sounds very reasonable that a medicine that is authorized for marketing by the regulatory authority of one country but not by another country, should not be regarded as counterfeit on this particular ground in the other country, if it is not made available fraudulently.

The recent survey on ‘spurious’ and ‘sub-standard’ drugs by the Government of India:

To assess the magnitude of the menace of counterfeit drugs, Financial Express dated November 12, 2009 reported that much hyped “world’s largest study on counterfeit drugs” conducted by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India with the help of the Drug Controller General of India’s office, has come to the following two key conclusions:

1. Only 0.0046% of the drugs in the market were spurious

2. Quantum of sub-standard drugs in India is just 0.001%

From this report, it appears that India, at this stage, has nothing to worry about this public health hazard!!!
It is indeed quite baffling to understand, why did the government keep ‘misbranded drugs’, as specified in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, outside the purview of this study.

Be that as it may, it appears that this survey has raised more questions than what it had attempted to answer. Such questions are expected to be raised not only by the pharmaceutical industry of India, its stakeholders and the civil society at large, but by the global experts, as well.

The problem of counterfeit is more prevalent in countries where regulatory enforcement is weak:

The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus it is generally believed that the issue of counterfeit drugs is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is weak.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits.

The role of ‘The World health Organization (WHO):

To effectively root out this global menace, the leadership role of the WHO is extremely important. Across the world, patients’ need protection from the growing menace of counterfeit medicines. As a premier organization to address the needs of the global public health issues and especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a key and much more proactive role in this matter.

Conclusion:

All stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware more effectively, without further delay, of the health threats posed by counterfeit medicines. Authorities and organizations like the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and its regulatory and enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, patients, all pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, wholesalers and retailers should collaborate to play a very active and meaningful role in curbing the counterfeit drugs from reaching the innocent patients.

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

Provision for Compulsory Licensing (CL) in India – some issues still need to be addressed.

Posted on by
Reply
Patent law systems provide for a provision for granting of compulsory licenses in a number of circumstances. Article 5A(2) of The Paris Convention, 1883 indicates that each contracting State may take legislative measures for the grant of compulsory licenses and reads as follows:“Each country of the Union shall have the right to take legislative measures providing for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent the abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent, for example, failure to work.”TRIPS agreement also contains important public health safeguards provisions to allow countries to override TRIPS requirements by engaging in compulsory licensing under certain situations and circumstances. Globally all patent systems comply with the requirements of TRIPS.

Doha declaration:

Doha Declaration gives WTO member-countries the right to grant compulsory licences (CL) and the right to decide on the reasons upon which such licences are to be granted. The declaration also states that the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted and implemented by the member-countries in a manner to protect public health and to promote access to medicines for all.

“Safeguards provision” in India:

The Indian Patent Act 2005 bestows enough power to the Controller General of Patents, Trademarks and Designs of India to issue compulsory licenses (CL) under following different sections of the Act:

1. Section 84:

This section prevents the abuse of patent as a monopoly and states that at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of grant of a patent, any interested person may make an application to the Indian Patent Office (IPO) for grant of compulsory licence on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or

(b) That the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or

(c) That the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India

Section 6 of section 84 states that in considering the application filed under this section, the controller shall take into account the following:

(i) The nature of the invention, the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patent or licensee to make full use of the invention;

(ii) The ability of the applicant to work the invention to the public advantage;

(iii) The capacity of the applicant to undertake the risk in providing capital and working the invention, if the application is granted;

(iv) Whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a license from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period as the Controller may deem fit:

Provided that this clause shall not be applicable in case of national emergencies or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non-commercial use or on establishment of a ground of anti-competitive practices adopted by the patentee.

Terms and conditions of CL will be determined by the Controller under section 90.

2. Sections 92 (1) and 92 (3):

These sections enable the Central Government to deal with circumstances of national emergency or circumstance of extreme urgency or in case of public non-commercial use by issuing CL.

3. Section 92 A:

This part enables grant of CL for export of patented pharmaceutical products in certain exceptional circumstances to any country having insufficient or no manufacturing capacity for the concerned product to address public health problems.

Some loose knots:

Some believe that there are still some loose knots in the CL provisions in India, which need to be tightened, immediately.

Granting CL for a Biopharmaceutical product could be an issue:

It will not be very easy to grant CL for a biopharmaceutical product as the conditions in which biopharmaceuticals are produced largely define the final product and its manufacturing process defines the product quality. Any alteration to the manufacturing process may result in a completely different product.

Therefore following are the main issues, which need to be urgently addressed:

• Small changes in the manufacture of biopharmaceutical and biosimilar medicinal products can dramatically affect the safety and efficacy of the therapeutic molecule.

• The very nature of a biologic means that it is practically impossible for two different manufacturers to manufacture two identical biopharmaceuticals if identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies are not used. This has to be demonstrated in an extensive comparability program. Therefore a generic biopharmaceutical cannot possibly exist.

• Substitution issues:

By contrasts with the situation applicable for generic chemical entities, biosimilar medicines can be “similar” but not “identical” to the innovator reference products. The “similar, but not identical” nature of biosimilar medicines means that substitution of the innovator product with a biosimilar product could have clinical consequences as patients could respond differently to the two products. To guarantee the efficacy and safety of biosimilar products, these products should only be approved following the submission of appropriate data generated with the biosimilar drug.

• Currently there are no published clear Indian guidelines for the approval of biosimilar drugs which will ensure the approval of efficacious and safe biosimilar drugs.

Some apprehensions on CL in India need to be addressed:

Some apprehensions have been expressed on possible misuse of CL and representations made to the government to address the following issues urgently. Tarceva and Stutent cases involving Nepal will probably justify such apprehensions:

o As the entire concept is based on “Working of Patents” in India, the term “Working of Patents” needs to be defined explicitly.

o Issuance of CL to be restricted to national emergency, extreme urgency and public non-commercial use

o Provisions in (Sec. 84 [7]) needs to be suitably amended that provide grounds for triggering CL by competitors for commercial benefits.

o Safeguards enshrined in the Aug 30 decision (Motta-Menon text) is to be provided for exports under Section 92A of the Indian Patents Act 2005, corresponding to Para 6 of the declaration on the TRIPS Agreement

Is paying royalty to patent holder an acceptable solution to this issue?

Many feel that this question totally ignores the right of an innovator to protect his/her innovation, which is the outcome of a painstaking, long, costly and risky R&D process. Such protection is granted to an innovator against disclosure of the data generated for the innovation to the patent office for public knowledge at large through grant of a patent for a specific time period. During this period the innovator is the exclusive owner of the innovation. The provision of CL can be invoked during this period, as stated above, for some very specific and extra-ordinary situation.

Such extra-ordinary situation, as and when will arise be addressed by the government based purely on the merits of the cases. Carte blanche permission by any authority allowing use of an innovator’s product during its patent life against a royalty payment, without innovators wish, is believed to be against the letter and spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005.

Conclusion:

In Indian Patents Act 2005, the provisions of CL should maintain a fine balance between the critical need of innovation by the pharmaceutical companies and its reach to the users to meet their unmet needs. For a country like India, CL is probably the most appropriate safeguard against potential abuse of monopoly by the patentees in case of national emergencies and to address critical public health issues.

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.

Key business strategies of global pharmaceutical industry are undergoing a radical change, while in India we are still thinking within the box. Who cares about the global clue?

Posted on by
Reply
One of the leading consulting companies, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in its report of June 2007 titled “Pharma 2020: The vision –Which path will you take?” postulated that the business model followed by the global pharmaceutical companies is, “economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets”.
R&D is failing to deliver:Datamonitor highlighted that drugs worth U.S$ 140 billion will go off patent by 2016. Thus the value turnover that will be lost because of number of drugs going off-patent will be almost impossible to replace by this time. Many analysts have been expressing concerns about gradual but steady decline in pharmaceutical R&D productivity since quite some time. During this period, most of the research based companies could afford only a small increase in their R&D budget, while marketing and other overhead expenditures registered a significant increase.

Single global process of Drug Regulatory approval…is possible…but is it probable?

PwC in the same report touched upon another interesting possibility within the R&D space of the global pharmaceutical industry. It indicated that the research based pharmaceutical companies will gradually switch over from, “Classic model of drug development that ends in regulatory approval to ‘live licenses’ that allow for narrow product launches followed by gradually expanding approvals as drugs are continuously tested.”

Most interestingly, the report also forecasted that by 2020, the drug regulators across the world will work together under a collaborative framework to arrive at uniform and single global process of drug regulatory approval. If it materializes, the process will indeed be path breaking in every sense.

Global pharmaceutical market will register significant growth:

Following this trend, the report highlighted, that the global pharmaceutical sales will touch U.S$ 1.3 trillion by 2020, almost double of what it is today. High growth of emerging markets and the aging global population are expected to be the key growth drivers.

During this period E7 countries like, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia are expected to contribute around 20% of Global Pharmaceutical turnover. Keeping pace with the economic progress, the disease pattern of these countries are also changing, from infectious diseases to non-infectious chronic illnesses, like diabetes, hypertension, just as we now observe in the developed world.

Together with this change, many predict that ‘greenhouse effect’ arising out of global warming process will have significant impact on health of the global population, resulting in large scale re-emergence of diseases like malaria and cholera together with various types of respiratory disorders.

Radical change is envisaged in pharmaceuticals marketing:

In April 2009, PwC came out with another interesting report titled, “Pharma 2020: Challenging business models, which path will you take?” on the future of the global pharmaceutical industry.

As the time progresses global pharmaceutical companies will need to understand the shift in ‘perceived value’ that is taking place within patients, medical profession and the community as a whole towards healthcare delivery. Just an innovative medicine will no longer be able to satisfy their ‘value expectations’. Pharmaceutical companies will have to offer a ‘bundle of benefits’, combining the innovative products with related health services, for which the market will not hesitate to pay a reasonable premium.

Thus in future, global pharmaceutical companies will need to collaborate with disease management specialists for a “holistic offering” to address an ailment rather than just treatment of the disease with medicines. Such “value added and innovative” marketing strategies will differentiate business success from failure, in 2020.

In the recent report PwC advocates that to be successful, in future, global pharmaceutical companies will need to change their ball game almost radically. The future strategy will focus on collaborative arrangements between various allied healthcare establishments and the pharmaceutical companies to offer a “holistic solution” to the patients in all disease areas.

That means, global manufacturer of an anti-diabetic drug will need to offer along with the innovative drug, counseling on diet regimen, suggesting exercise programs and their follow-up, reminders for regular and timely intake of medicines and many more. Who knows?

“Better late than never”:

In any case, to excel in business at a time when the global pharmaceutical business model is undergoing a fundamental shift; there is a need to keep on investing more towards R&D, which will continue to remain the ultimate growth engine of pharmaceutical business, the world over. At the same time, there will be a dire need to prune expenditure in innovative ways and that opens the door for global outsourcing of various business processes from most cost efficient countries having world class facilities.

Domestic pharmaceutical players, if start mustering all resources to avail these global opportunities, India can soon become a global hub for pharmaceuticals outsourcing, outracing China which is currently placed ahead of India, in this field. As the good old saying goes, I shall always wish, “better late than never”.

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.

Growing menace of counterfeit drugs in India: why is the domestic pharmaceutical industry still so apprehensive with the new Amendments of the ACT?

Posted on by
Reply
The growing menace of Counterfeit drugs has remained a serious threat to the healthcare space of India.
Do we have any credible data to assess the magnitude of this menace in India?

No we do not have, as yet. At this stage, the magnitude of the problem is anybody’s guess. Earlier a study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and conducted by SEARPharm reported that only 0.3% drugs were spurious and 3% of drugs were counterfeits.

Government of India has initiated the largest study in the world to quantify the problem:

To scientifically assess the magnitude of the problem in terms of real size of counterfeit drugs market in India , the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) India’s, for the first time ever, has initiated one of the largest studies in the world, as reported by the Times of India May 14, 2008.

The study has already identified 61 popular drug brands from nine therapeutic categories for testing 24000 samples. These include drugs prescribed for tuberculosis, malaria, allergic disorders, diabetes cardiovascular conditions, vitamins etc. This study is expected to cost 50 million rupees or about U.S$1.0 million and is expected to be published, soon.

Making provisions for stricter penalties through amendment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:

To bring into effect stricter penalties for those involved in counterfeit drugs, the process of amendment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was proposed by the Ministry of Health in October, 2007. These amendments are expected to make the drug-related offences, cognisable and non-bailable.

The latest amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 became a law in 2008. The punishment for selling or distributing spurious drugs, which are likely to cause death and grievous hurt to the patients, is now imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and fine not less than Rs 10 lakh or three times the value of drugs confiscated, whichever is more.

The Minister of Health of India announced in November 2008, that with this amendment the Government of India will “go all out to do away with spurious drugs.”

India working closely with WHO Anti-counterfeiting Taskforce:

India being a part of ‘International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce’ (IMPACT), established under WHO in 2006, decided to work together to combat the growing menace of counterfeit medicines.

The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) was reported to have several discussions with the convenor of the IMPACT to effectively address the issue of such serious threats to the patients at large. Many people believe that China and India are the main source of counterfeit drugs in the world.

Apprehensions of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry with new Amendments in the Law:

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry although welcomed the stricter punitive provisions in the law, expressed its apprehensions due to lack of clear demarcation between the definitions of spurious drugs and those which can lose their original potency because of improper transportation and storage.

If the law-enforcing authorities pick up such medicines from retail outlets, those can easily get categorised as spurious medicines under Section 17A and 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Consequently the concerned manufacturers could be put behind bars with, presumably, no fault at their end.

While stringent punishment is essential for those involved in such heinous crime, the Government should take enough measures to ensure that genuine drug manufacturers are not harassed by the law enforcing authorities, as the courts will have no judicial discretion to award less than minimum punishment, as prescribed under this Act.

Need for clear guidelines for implementation of the amended ACT:

To allay the major apprehension of the industry regarding possible misuse of some provisions of the Act, the Ministry of Health is expected to work out and quickly announce clear guidelines for implementation of the act by the law enforcement agencies in different parts of India.

Will this amendment help to win the fight against counterfeit drugs?

Only time will be able to give that answer. However, by amending the Act, the Government of India has demonstrated its resolve to address the threat of counterfeit drugs with iron hand. Through enunciation of above guidelines, all concerned are expected to be taken on board to effectively curb, if not totally eliminate this growing menace, for the sake of humanity.

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.