Tag Archives: systems

Create Greater Patient–Value To Excel With Repurposed Covid Brands

Posted on by
Reply

Regular introduction of new molecules, line extensions or a Novel Drug delivery System (NDDS) has remained the life blood for pharma to rejuvenate a company’s product portfolio for driving organizational growth. But, Covid’s unprecedented and devastating assault on human lives and livelihoods, has pushed many of these initiatives off track. Covid infection was declared pandemic by the World health organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020, compelling the industry to primarily focus on finding solutions for survival, especially in the product development areas.

As the fight against time, the need for survival became so intense, there was no time for pharma companies going back to primary research, to discover new effective Covid specific drug molecules. Vaccines – at the initial stage of the pandemic, were considered by experts could be the only ‘magic bullet’, to get the humanity back again on its feet, after a fierce knockout blow by the virus. As on date, although vaccines seem to be nearer the finishing line of creating adequate initial immunity against Covid, still there are no scientifically proven drugs to predictably cure this infection.

Meanwhile, the focus of all concerned is on the existing drugs, to examine their effectiveness against Covid-19. Accordingly, right from hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone to a number of already existing antiviral agents were repurposed for Covid treatment, under emergency approval by country regulators, pending detailed clinical trials.

For various critical reasons, experts now feel that the use various NDDS technologies in repurposing existing drugs, would create greater value for patients in Covid treatment. At the same time, this will help pharma companies to create a cutting-edge differentiator for their repurposed brands – being more patient centric. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, starting with the current status and issues with repurposed Covid drugs, as of date.

Current status and issues with repurposed Covid drugs:

According to recent reports, such as one titled ‘Formulation and delivery strategies for COVId-19 drugs,’ published by the AIchE in June 2020, more than 40 different drugs are currently being explored for efficacy against COVID-19. Unfortunately, side effects of many of these repurposed drugs limit their use in most severe cases, besides preventing their use as prophylactics.

A large proportion of repurposed Covid drugs are small-molecule medications, antivirals, and immune-modulating antibodies. These are already approved for other indications (like hydroxychloroquine, ribavirin, favipiravir), or under clinical trials, but not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA (like, remdesivir, galidesivir, leronlimab).

If proven effective, these drugs would offer several advantages from a rapid- response perspective, such as the availability of safety data. In addition, several of these drugs offer broad-spectrum activity that makes it more likely they will remain functional even if the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates. However, there are also exists some critical issues with repurposed Covid drugs.

Some critical issues with repurposed Covid drugs:

Let me cite below two examples, just to drive home the point of some critical medical issues, now existing with these repurposed Covid drugs:

  • Hydroxychloroquine – the malaria drug, when used as directed, commonly produces nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, besides muscle weakness. Importantly, at higher concentrations – only two to three times the daily dose, it can cause potentially fatal acute cardiovascular toxicity. Thus, the possibility of severe side effects makes the drug unattractive as a preventive measure. Drug formulation and delivery strategies, such as controlled release and targeted delivery could expand the use of such existing drugs, the report recommends.
  • The HIV drug combination lopinavir and ritonavir, which is under evaluation as a COVID-19 treatment, has side effects that include diarrhea, nausea, and liver damage. With a half-life of about 4–6 hours, the systemic concentrations can vary by a factor of eight between peak and trough. Developing a controlled-release formulation that maintains the minimum effective drug concentration, could mitigate side effects by reducing the steady-state drug concentration by as much as eightfold and reducing the burden on the liver by 81%, the above study, published by the AIchE in June 2020, highlighted.

At this point, for greater clarity, let me recapitulate what NDDS really means.

NDDS – clinical and marketing relevance:

Novel Drug Delivers Systems or NDDS generally ‘refers to the approaches, formulations, technologies, and systems for transporting a pharmaceutical compound in the body as needed to safely achieve its desired therapeutic effects.’

This process was lucidly explained in a contemporary article, which also inferred that the method by which a drug is delivered can have a significant effect on its efficacy and safety profile.

Yet another paper underscored, ‘if therapeutic agents can be made more efficacious and safer, using an improved drug delivery system, could achieve both –lucrative marketing opportunities for pharmaceutical companies, alongside advancement in the treatment of diseases of mankind.’ Moreover, NDDS can also help maintain the drug concentration in the therapeutic range for a longer period of time and deliver the content to the site of action if required.

Leaving aside the technical details behind these mechanisms let me underscore - that NDDS will be a boon for the repurposing of drugs, was also discussed in detail in an article titled, ‘Role of Novel Drug Delivery Systems in Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): Time to Act Now,’ published on September 09, 2020.

Some broad categories of NDDS and new initiatives:

For this purpose, some of the broad categories of NDDS may include the following:

  • Sustained- or controlled drug delivery systems provide drug action at a pre-determined rate.
  • Localized drug delivery devices for drug release in the vicinity of the target.
  • Rate – pre-programed drug delivery systems.
  • Targeted drug delivery provides drug action by using carries, which recognize their receptor at the target.

It goes without saying that NDDS mechanism may be used both for new molecules that may eventually be developed, and also for the existing repurposed drugs for Covid treatment.

Some encouraging initiatives of NDDS for Covid drugs:

The encouraging news is pharma initiatives in this regard has already commenced. For example, unprecedented interest in inhaled delivery of antiviral drugs has led to Aerogen’s involvement in multiple COVID-19 drug development initiatives, with more than 15 leading pharmaceutical companies - worldwide.

Several of these collaborations are already in clinical trials. Others are also on track to enter studies on moderately and severely ill COVID-19 patients, the Press Information of Aerogen dated October 22, 2020 highlighted. Let me cite below two more examples in this area, to explain the intensity of work that has commenced in the NDDS space for repurposed Covid drugs.

Covis Pharma’s inhaled glucocorticoid, Alvesco (ciclesonide) has entered Phase III safety and efficacy trial in 400 non-hospitalized patients  -12 years of age and older with symptomatic COVID-19. The product is delivered twice daily via a pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI).

Senzer Pharmaceuticals - a UK based company, is also in the process of formulating two specific medicines with antiviral properties, to allow them to be inhaled directly into the respiratory tract. The primary aim is to reduce the number of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care treatment. Senzer is also using a pMDI for targeted drug delivery of actives through inhalation, as it offers potential advantages over oral intake. These include, ease of administration, assisting early treatment, allowing a lower dose by reducing unwanted side effects and supporting the safety profile of the products.

Experts consider preparations of inhalable particles for local delivery is a simpler approach. This is because the lungs comprise only about 2% of the total body weight, targeted delivery could reduce the amount of drug required by a factor of 50 or more, as compared to oral administration.

Be that as it may, the primary purpose of all such initiatives is to ensure more effective and safer drug delivery to Covid patients. It is now up to the pharma marketing leadership to ascertain how to leverage such NDDS opportunities to deliver extra patient-value, simultaneously creating a cutting edge for marketing these repurposed brands.

Impact of Covid on the NDDS market segments:

The May 11, 2020 report titled, ‘Drug Delivery Systems Market Forecast, Trend Analysis & Competition Tracking – Global Market Insights 2020 to 2025,’ presents some interesting details in this area. It forecasts, the global drug delivery systems market shall register an upswing, expanding at a strong CAGR of 7.0% during the forecast period (2020-2025).

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is expected to further heighten prospects of NDDS, with the number of infections still increasing every day. Consequently, many leading pharma companies have accelerated production of essential drug delivery systems, as stated above. According to the above report, the key growth drivers of the NDDS market include:

  • Targeted drug delivery - being most dominant, is expected to capture nearly half of the global NDDS market, expanding at a healthy CAGR of 6.8% across the above forecast period.
  • Polymeric drug delivery segment is anticipated to be the second-most lucrative area, expanding at a CAGR of 7.3% across the forecast period. The popularity of this delivery type is attributed to its efficiency in localized drug delivery in large amounts, alongside lowering drug toxicity rate. The polymeric drug delivery segment is expected to capture more than 1/3rd of the global drug delivery systems market during the forecast period.
  • Application of nanotechnology is another key growth determinant for the segment. Insertion of nanoparticles help penetrate the targeted tissue in a much better manner. These particles are easily absorbed by cells, facilitating efficient drug delivery.
  • Microneedle drug delivery helps deliver vaccines or other drugs across various barriers.

Conclusion:

The Covid clock keeps ticking. As on November 22, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 9,095,908 of Coronavirus cases with 133,263 deaths. The average number of daily new cases appeared, after the festive season, have started climbing up again. The threat of subsequent waves for further spread of Covid infection now looms large.

In this regard, many experts initially thought that Covid vaccines will be magic bullets to win the war against the new Coronavirus. But in the most recent times, this situation has changed, and it is no longer so – not even Pfizer vaccine. Indian media also deliberated the same on November 05, 2020.

Under this backdrop, Arthur L. Caplan, professor of bioethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, who wrote a 2017 book on vaccine ethics and policy have also made a profound comment. He said recently: “We’re going to have to continue our behavioral efforts - the masking and distancing and the quarantining and the testing and so on — in parallel with vaccination because it would be very, very surprising if we got a very highly effective vaccine first one out of the box.”

Currently, the world doesn’t have any clinically proven new Covid treatment drugs, either. What we have now is a number of repurposed Covid drugs, many of these are in advanced stage of clinical trials. As and when these are approved by the country’s regulators, pharma marketers will have a task cut to excel with those – among many ‘me-too’ types. In this scenario, there will be a critical need to create greater patient-value with a company’s own repurposed brand, where right application of NDDS technology could play a game changing role. The time to keep pondering is over. Time to decide is – now.

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.

 

 

2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More

Posted on by
Reply

Wish You And All Your Near And Dear Ones Peace, Happiness, Good Health And Prosperity in The Brand New Year 2016 

The year 2015 witnessed several noteworthy developments in the pharma industry, just as many other years before. That said, in my view, a few of these happenings were much more impactful, and probably took place for the first time ever, in the year just gone by.

Obviously, one such major development is the overall serious adverse impact on the image of the pharma industry, in general. 

During 2015, the image of the pharma industry got further tarnished by reports of high-profile alleged drug price manipulations. This avoidable saga culminated with the arrest of a pharma Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the United States, amid a federal investigation, in December 2015.

However, I am not going to dwell on this issue in this article. Instead, I shall select some key strategic pharma business areas, which contribute to the largest chunk of the total overall cost, incurred by the global pharma industry, every year. These areas, as I see, are:

  • Drug discovery research
  • Sales and Marketing
  • Supply Chain
  • Development of new drug delivery systems
  • Patients care and engagements

I have put all these points in the above order, just for the convenience of my discussion in this article. 

With a few examples, I shall give my perspective on these areas of the global pharma industry, dividing them broadly into the following two sub-categories: 

  • Areas where the industry could have done a lot better
  • Areas where the industry made significant progress
The Pharma industry strategy continues to remain broadly traditional:

Pharma sector is globally considered as an industry, which appears to be more comfortable in maintaining and harnessing its traditional approaches, in almost all its field of activities. Although, some tweaking has certainly been taking place, which are primarily to automate or digitalize the same process, aimed at adding more speed together with virtually real time monitoring of operations.

Let me hasten to add here that, some major and newer types of modern tech based collaborative initiatives with large companies outside the pure pharma space, have also been reported, during the year.

I shall deliberate on both these areas, one after another, hereunder. 

A. Areas where the industry could have done a lot better:

Drug discovery research:

With the increasing impact of patent cliff and low productivity in drug discovery research, coming alongside big ticket generic threats, many pharma players seem to be still tweaking with its traditional blockbuster drug discovery model, in 2015.

Slightly changing from this traditional strategic focus, many of them have now started focusing more on ‘Orphan Drug’ research, though with indication of a life threatening disease with low prevalence, intending to go whole hog for very high pricing of these drugs.

By gradually adding more indications, these innovator companies plan to make the ‘Orphan drug’ molecule a money churning blockbuster drug. As a result, the number of venture capitalists, who invest in the early stages of such drug development, has increased significantly in 2015.

According to reports, over 40 percent of all approved orphan drugs are meant for high risk cancer sub-categories with low prevalence rate. Although these drugs are for lifetime treatment, the medicines are frightfully expensive, costing between US$200,000 and US$300,000 per year, for each patient. 

Intriguingly, still a very few drug companies are externalizing drug discovery research or even considering on a large scale, the use of the ‘Open Source’ drug discovery model, which is currently widely used in the Information Technology (IT) industry, as one of the main platforms to get new products.

Sales and Marketing:

Similarly, in the pharma sales and marketing space, there has been no game changing developments, during the last year.

Although, some initiatives that can at best be termed as tweaking on the traditional pharma methods, were visible, especially in the fields of digital marketing and e-detailing. The good old and much tried traditional tools, such as, Medical Representatives’ (MR) product detailing to individual doctors or a large number of ‘medical seminars’/ ‘continuing medical education’ events, of varying scale and dimensions, arranged for the medical practitioners, still ranked at the very top of this domain. 

Here, again, no signs of a paradigm shift were visible to me during the year, nor do I reckon, any game changer is likely to surface, any time soon.

Supply chain:

The immense importance of ‘Supply Chain’ in the overall pharma business does not appear to have been properly understood by the drug companies up until 2015. This has been well vindicated by various credible studies. I would refer below just two of those: 

The Chief Supply Chain Officer Report of September 2014, highlighted that just 39 percent of pharmaceutical respondents see the ‘Supply Chain’ as an equally important part of business success as R&D or sales and marketing. Whereas, 68 percent of consumer packaged goods’ respondents believe that leveraging the true potential of this domain, is one of the key requirements for business excellence.

This is noteworthy, as even ‘The McKinsey report’ of September 2013 stated that supply chains now account for around 25 percent of pharmaceutical costs. The annual spending on it is so staggering of around US$230 billion that even minor efficiency gains in this area could free up billions of dollars for investments elsewhere.

Instead of following its traditional approaches, if the pharma sector adopts even straightforward advances, well established in other industries, the total costs could fall by US$130 billion, ‘The McKinsey report’ estimates. 

Ideally, pharma ‘Supply Chain’ should be considered not just a means of getting the products at the right place, at the right time and in the right quantities, but also as a means of delivering additional value to the customers. This can be achieved with radical strategic intervention in this space with the application of the state of art technology, which was still broadly lacking in 2015. 

B. Areas where the industry made significant progress: 

In this section, by citing examples on two other important strategic business areas of the pharma industry, where significant progress has been reported during 2015, I would try to drive home my point. These two areas are new drug delivery systems and patient care/engagement.

New drug delivery systems:

On the development of new drug delivery systems, some interesting collaborative arrangements have been reported in 2015. As illustrative examples, I would cite just the following two: 

A. “Smart Inhaler”

I have picked up this important area of a new drug delivery system, out of many, as it fascinates me immensely. Here again, I would illustrate my point with just two examples – out of several others, as hereunder:

1. On December 2, 2015, the British drug major GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) reportedly entered into a technology deal with Wisconsin-based Propeller Health. Under this collaboration, Propeller will create a custom sensor for GSK’s Ellipta inhaler. The Propeller platform combines sensors, software, and care team services to improve patient outcomes by providing more insightful and efficient care. GSK is the second largest pharmaceutical company to partner with Propeller Health, which in December 2013 announced a deal with Boehringer Ingelheim to develop a custom sensor for BI’s Respimat device.

2. In September, 2015, Teva Pharmaceuticals reportedly acquired Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Gecko Health Innovations, a smart inhaler company.

Gecko’s main product is a platform for chronic respiratory disease management that also combines a sensor device that connects to most inhalers, a data analytics platform, an accessible user interface, and behavioral triggers to help asthma and COPD patients manage their condition, more effectively.

B. Sanofi and Medtronic strategic alliance in diabetes to improve patient experience and outcomes

Although not many large scale commercial ‘drug discovery’ initiatives based on the ‘Open Source’ model is still not known to me, in the ‘new drug delivery system’ area, a major global strategic alliance, between Sanofi and Medtronic in the diabetes therapy area, has been reported based on this model. This alliance is aimed at improving patient experience and outcomes for persons with diabetes, around the world. 

As I mentioned, the alliance structured as an ‘Open Innovation’ model, will initially focus on the following key priorities:

  • Development of drug-device combinations
  • Delivery of care management services to improve adherence and simplify insulin treatment
  • Help people with diabetes better manage their condition

Patient engagement and care:

Quite encouragingly, in the ‘patient engagement and care’ area too, some of the global pharma majors have taken notable tech-based strides during 2015. Some of these laudable ventures are as follows:

A. Novo Nordisk and IBM partner to build diabetes care solutions on the Watson Health Cloud

According to a Dec. 10, 2015 ‘Press Release’, Novo Nordisk and IBM Watson Health agreed to work together to create diabetes solutions, built on the Watson Health Cloud.

Under this agreement, by harnessing the potential of the Watson Health Cloud, Novo Nordisk aims to further advance its offerings to people living with diabetes and also their health care professionals.

B. Sanofi collaborates with Google to Improve diabetes health outcomes

Less than a couple of months before the Novo Nordisk – IBM partnership agreement, by a Press Release of August 31 2015, Sanofi and Google announced their collaboration to improve care and outcomes for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

According to the release, this collaboration will explore how to improve diabetes care by developing new tools that bring together many of the previously siloed pieces of diabetes management and enable new kinds of interventions. This includes health indicators such as blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels, patient-reported information, medication regimens and sensor devices. 

Is the word “Innovation” also being used as a façade?

This important, though contentious issue, is being raised by many today, globally.

In my view, global pharma even in 2015, continued making the mistake of repeatedly highlighting, with high decibel sound bytes that the stakeholders do not understand the value, importance and necessity of innovation, which in any case is far from the truth. Nevertheless, It kept using, rather more misusing, this important word too often to cover up any action of theirs that faced government, general public or media scrutiny.

Additionally, many pharma players seemingly continued to remain contented with a very narrow definition of the word ‘innovation’, limiting its application mostly in the traditional space of drug discovery. While at the same time, many other smarter and more astute innovators, especially in the IT world, besides Google, IBM and Apple, started stepping into the vast healthcare arena, which otherwise could possibly have become pharma’s expanded market.

A am quoting below the names of just five of these amazing innovators, from the published data, just to give you a feel of this interesting area of ‘innovation’ in the health care arena:

  • Medivation: For finding the value of treatments that others ignored
  • Beijing Genomics Institute: For making DNA sequencing a mass-market
  • Medisafe: For using wireless and cloud technology to improve drug adherence
  • Ginger.IO: For harnessing behavioral data to save lives
  • Setpoint Medical: For creating a built-in pain-relief platform 
Epilogue:

Overall, the year 2015 was a mixed bag for pharma. Many pharma players, I reckon, displayed their self serving intent in a more glaring manner. Several captains of this industry generally talked all right things, which are music to many ears, but mostly acted quite differently, going against the public health interest, as reported by the global media.

Many pharma companies continued trying to woo the media cleverly during the year. Some of them, reportedly, even sponsored trips of a few Indian journalists to their respective overseas headquarters. As I understand, many newspaper readers too, had noticed the small print disclosures in this regard, at the bottom of their stories on those companies, written on the return.  I have no intention to be judgmental on such trips. Nevertheless, the global media, including the Indian media, by and large, reported all such deeds, with as much detail as possible, without slightest hesitation.

Encouragingly, a few global pharma majors, such as, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca challenged this contusing status quo in 2015. They seem to dare to chart into the much uncharted frontier to squarely face the challenge of the changing demands of the changing world order. Probably not so much by trying to change others, but mostly by changing themselves. 

It appears, at least, the likes of the above global players have started accepting the new expectations of the aspiring customers and their fast transforming mindsets, including, the tougher governments enacting contemporary laws and regulations in many countries. In tandem, the exorbitantly high cost and usually low profile advocacy initiatives of drug companies seem to becoming lesser and lesser productive, as evident by the increasing number of avoidable issues that the pharma industry is now facing. Added to all this, a modern and major force-multiplier, in the form of social media, has now started unleashing its unfathomable power of shaping laws, regulations and even public opinion.

I wish this wind of change gaining more speed in 2016, and in that process, ushers in the long awaited dawn of a new paradigm. A paradigm of justice and equity in health care for all, across the world, and especially to my own country – India.

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.

Public Healthcare Space: Evaluating Three Fresh Edicts

Posted on by
Reply

Medicines constitute a significant cost component of modern healthcare systems across the world. However, in India the situation is even worse, where as per recent studies, drugs contribute as high as around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. This is mainly because overall healthcare system in the country is fundamentally different not just from the developed world, but also from many other developing countries like, China, Brazil, South Africa and Thailand, to name a few.

In most of those countries significant expenses towards healthcare including medicines are reimbursed either by the Governments or through health insurance or similar mechanisms. However, the Indian situation is just the reverse, where around 72 percent of overall healthcare costs, including medicines, are private or Out of Pocket (OoP), incurred by the individuals/families.

According to a recent report, ‘about 38 million people in India (which is more than Canada’s population) fall below the poverty line every year due to healthcare expenses, of which 70% is on purchase of drugs’, as stated above.

In this context, it is worth noting that for patented drugs, the Drug Policy of December 2012 clearly articulates that Government of India will follow the approach of price negotiation with the respective companies. Unfortunately, work done in this so important area by the concerned authority, so far, has been rather superficial, if not shoddy. Most of the patented products, which are prohibitively expensive, continue to remain out of reach of a vast majority of patients in india.

Expenditure towards healthcare – a fundamental need:

Expenditure towards healthcare in India, which is largely private, highly exploitative and thus expensive, is absolutely essential for all, either to be able to earn a living for a family or for maintaining a reasonable quality of life.

According to an ‘Access Survey’ conducted by IMS Consulting Group in 2012, ‘Out Patient (OP)’ treatment costs in private care is ~2-3 times that of public and in case of ‘In-Patient (IP)’ care it is ~4-8 times the cost of Public care.

Focus has not been just enough:

Since 1970, the Government of India and various States have been adopting  measures including, National Health Mission (NHM), Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), Drug Price Control Order (DPCO), besides others, to make healthcare in general and medicines in particular affordable and accessible to the common man. However, these measures though essential, have not delivered quite well when measured against the set objectives. This keeps on happening, due to lack of accountability and inefficient Government control over the processes involved together with fast increasing exploitative mindset in the private healthcare space, over the last several decades.

Health being a State subject inequity in access:

Health being a State subject in India, there has been large variations in public healthcare spend within various States of the country. Some of the poorer States have low  per capita public healthcare expenditure and some of the richer states incur significantly more, leading to huge inequity of access, especially among the poorer sections of the society. (Source: IMS Consulting 2012)

Three fresh edicts:

In the above backdrop, the decision of the Government of India to increase the National Health Expenditure Budget from 1.2% to 2.5% of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan of India in 2012 has the potential to be a game changer in the public healthcare space of India.

It is envisaged that this decent increase in the budgetary allocation will help initiating the process of Universal Health Care (UHC) to ensure free access to essential health services for every citizen of the country, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care.

Probably as a precursor to UHC, the Government of India has announced three fresh edicts:

1. Budgetary clearance for ‘Free distribution of essential medicines’ by the States

2. Notification for operationalizing the new ‘Central Medical Services Society (CMSS)’ to streamline the drug procurement system 

3. Announcement for implementation of ‘Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs)’ 

The above edicts are indeed laudatory, as these measures, if taken effectively in tandem would also help maximizing overall productivity of the public healthcare delivery systems, immensely.  This is expected mainly because, the process would require avoidance of unnecessary medicines and diagnostics tests, chain of multiple doctor visits starting from GPs, specialists to super specialists, besides simultaneous re-engineering of below par public healthcare delivery systems of the country.

1. Budgetary clearance for free distribution of essential medicines by the States:

Late 2012, the Union Government made its first major move by formally clearing Rs. 13,000 Crore  (around US$ 2.2 billion) towards providing free medicines for all through government hospitals and health centers. The State Governments under National Health Mission to utilize this fund for purchase and free distribution of essential medicines. Some State Governments are already in the process of implementing this scheme, though effective implementation of the same, across the country, still remains a challenge.

This new scheme, I reckon, has also the potential to hasten the overall growth of the pharmaceutical industry, as poor patients who could not afford will now have access to essential medicines. On the other hand, rapidly growing middle class population will continue to favor branded generic drugs prescribed by the doctors at the private hospitals and clinics.

Some people are apprehending that generic drug makers will have brighter days as the project starts rolling on. This apprehension is based on the assumption that large branded generic players will be unable to take part in this big ticket drug procurement process of the Government, which seems to be imaginary at this stage.

However, in my view, it could well be a win-win situation for all types of players in the industry, where both the generic-generic and branded-generic businesses could continue to grow simultaneously.

That said procedural delays and drug quality issues, while procuring cheaper generics, might pose to be a great challenge for the Government to ensure speedier implementation of this project. Drug regulatory and law enforcing authorities will require to be extremely vigilant to ensure that while sourcing cheaper generic drugs, “Public health and safety” due to quality issues do not get compromised in any way.

POTENTIALITY: Significant increase in access to medicines and simultaneous sharp reduction on OoP expenses.

2. Operationalization of CMSS for drug procurement:

Recently this year, the Union Health Ministry issuing the final notification reportedly has made the drug procurement system through Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) formally operational.

The drug procurement for different flagship program, of the Government like National Health Mission, will now be done through the CMSS.

The notification says:

  • The CMSS will be responsible for procuring health sector goods in a transparent and cost-effective manner and distributing them to the States/UTs by setting up an IT enabled supply chain infrastructure including warehouses in 50 locations.
  • The main objective of CMSS is to ensure uninterrupted supply of health-sector goods to the state Government, which will then maintain the flow to the govt. health facilities such as district hospitals, primary health centers and community health centers.
  • All decisions on procurement will be taken by the CMSS without any reference to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
  • The Ministry will be responsible only for policy decisions concerning procurement and for monitoring its performance.
  • The CMSS will also assist the state governments to set up similar organizations in states to reform their procurement.
  • The Government has appointed the Director General and other key persons to run the organization, which will look to eliminate deficiencies in the existing system of purchasing medicines, vaccines, contraceptives and medical equipment for all government’s flagship program.
  • At present, the ministry procures drugs departmentally and through agents, drawing flaks and raking controversies at regular intervals.

This seemingly transparent drug procurement process for public use, would prompt tough price negotiations with the manufacturers for purchase of medicines leading to significant reduction in drug prices, as evidenced already in the States like, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan.

POTENTIALITY: Significant reduction in public healthcare costs, especially for medicines.

3. Announcement for implementation of Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs):

Another recent news that Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for 20 disciplines will soon be put in place in India is indeed a breath of fresh air. The centers of excellence for healthcare, both public and private, for around 1.2 billion population of the country, are still rather limited.

STG is usually defined as a systematically developed statement designed to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate cost-effective treatment for specific disease areas.

For each disease area, the treatment should include “the name, dosage form, strength, average dose (pediatric and adult), number of doses per day, and number of days of treatment. STG also includes specific referral criteria from a lower to a higher level of the diagnostic and treatment requirements.

For an emerging economy, like India, formulation of STGs would ensure cost-effective healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population.

STGs, therefore, will provide:

- Standardized guidance to practitioners

- Cost-effective ‘health outcomes’ based services

The Ministry of Health is now reportedly mulling to streamline in a phased manner the disease treatment procedures and protocols by introducing STGs in 20 disciplines under the ‘Clinical Establishments Act’ of the country. These disciplines are Cardiovascular, Endocrinology, ENT, Gastroenterology, General Surgery, Interventional Radiology, Laboratory Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Organ Transplant, Pediatrics, Oncology, Urology, Nephrology, GI Surgery, Medicine Respiratory, Medicine Non-Respiratory, Critical Care, Ophthalmology, Neurology and Orthopedics.

The National Council for Clinical Establishments (NCCE) is the apex body under the Clinical Establishments Act. STGs, therefore, will be binding on all hospitals and establishments registered under the Clinical Establishments Act 2010.

The Council has already deliberated on the draft STGs prepared by the experts in the respective disciplines of medicines. Surgical intervention in cardiovascular diseases reportedly will assume priority while implementing the STGs.

It is expected that the first of the STGs will be announced soon.

Currently only Uttar Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim, Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Jharkhand, apart from all Union Territories, have adopted the Act. Again, health being a State subject in India, all the States of the country will need to enforce this Act to make the initiative successful. However, states like West Bengal have their own Clinical Establishment Act, while Tamil Nadu has its own STGs.

Incidentally, putting STGs in place has been one of the long-standing demands of many, including the medical insurance companies. This is mainly because, laid-down protocols will make the hospitals avoiding unnecessary procedures on insured patients, thereby reducing the cost of treatment significantly.

POTENTIALITY: Huge reduction in healthcare cost, avoiding wastage in every step of any disease treatment. This could also help the medical insurance companies containing hospitalization costs, hopefully leading to reduced insurance premium.

Conclusions: 



All these three edicts of the Government, do promise a huge potential to help containing the overall cost of treatment in general and the costs of medicines in particular.

Effective implementation of these important initiatives would call for a significant change in mindset of all concerned. Doctors, hopefully, would also avoid using those expensive drugs having no significant improvement in ‘health outcomes’ over the cheaper alternatives.

STGs would initially need to be encouraged not just through self-regulation of the medical profession, but by the pharmaceutical industry and other allied interested parties in this area, as well. If ‘self-regulation’ does not work, stringent regulatory measures must be enforced by the Government to protect patients’ health interest.

No doubt both the Union and the State Governments of India would still have lot to chew in pursuit of ensuring affordable healthcare in general and medicines in particular, to all.

That said, would expectations of crafty implementation of these edicts, at least, flicker a ray of hope in an otherwise gloomy and exploitative overall healthcare environment of the country?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

Posted on by
Reply

On September 30, 2013, with a damning stricture to the Drug Regulator, the Supreme Court, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch, stayed approvals for 162 applications for local Clinical Trials (CTs) of new drugs approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) earlier.

The apex court of the country granted the DCGI two weeks time to furnish evidence to the court that adequate patients’ safety and other related mechanisms have been put in place for CTs of all New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and New Molecular Entities (NMEs) in the country.

According to reports, during July and August 2013, the DCGI received 1,122 CT applications, out of which, 331 related to approval of global CTs. The New Drug Advisory Committee (NDAC) approved 285 drugs in AIDS, oncology, cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, metabolism and endocrinology therapy areas. Finally, 162 drugs received the green signal from the DCGI. Now all these trials have come to a halt.

At the same time, the court also directed the Ministry of Health to come out with a plan within 10 weeks to strengthen the regulatory framework for CTs in India based on various suggestions received from the state governments, other stakeholders and experts groups.

A casual approach?

Just to recapitulate, prior to this, on January 3, 2013, against the PIL, the bench of Honorable Justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human lives causing even deaths to many subjects in India.

In an interim order, the bench directed the Government that CTs could be conducted only under the supervision of the Health Secretary of India. Holding the Government responsible, the bench further observed, “You (Government) have to protect health of citizens of the country. It is your obligation. Deaths must be arrested and illegal trials must be stayed.”

Thereafter, though the Health Secretary of India approved the above 162 CTs, presumably following the above Supreme Court directive, it is an irony that when asked by the Apex Court, the government could not immediately explain precisely what systems and mechanisms have been put in place for proper conduct of these 162 CTs. It sought 2 weeks’ time to justify the action taken by the drug regulator in this regards.

Compromise on patients’ safety continues unabated: 

During another hearing early in October 2013 on a petition filed by the NGO ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch regarding violations of norms during CTs, the Supreme Court reportedly sought details from the Union Government on the irregularities during the drug trial using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines by the Seattle (USA) based organization PATH in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat states of India.

This intervening application by the NGO was based on the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Health and Family Welfare report dated August 30, 2013, where it was recommended that action should be taken against PATH, state governments of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and other government officials including Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for alleged violations on the subject.

The report highlights, HPV vaccines were given to 14,091 girls in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh and 10,686 girls in Vadodra, Gujarat. These girls were between age group of 10 and 14, of which seven girls died due to such illegal vaccine trials.

Eventually, these trials were stopped, but only after the matter received media attention.

As per reports, the vaccines were provided by two pharma MNCs – Merck and GlaxoSmithKline through PATH. It also stated as follows:

“Vaccines were given to children irrespective of age in the case of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. While permission was given to use GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in children of 10 to 14 years, CTs had been conducted on subjects in the age group of 18 to 35 years. Thus the safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized.”

No options but to shape-up:

It is worth mentioning, the above PIL had alleged that large scale drug trials being conducted across the country, mainly by the pharma MNC, are using Indian patients as ‘guinea pigs’, as it were. The NGO also told the Supreme Court that several pharmaceutical companies continue to conduct CTs quite indiscriminately, in various states of India, endangering lives of poorly/un-informed trial subjects.

In an affidavit to the Court, the Government admitted that between 2005 and 2012, 2,644 people died during CTs of 475 NCEs/NMEs with serious adverse events related deaths taking 80 lives.

Thus, coming under immense pressure from the civil society and now the scrutiny of the Supreme Court for so many CT related deaths and consequential patients’ compensation issues, the Government does not seem to have any other options left now but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross a turnover of US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

Experts believe that the growth of the CT segment in India is driven mainly by the MNCs for easy availability of a large treatment naive patient population with varying disease pattern and demographic profile at a very low cost, as compared to many other countries across the world.

CT related deaths in India:

As per the Ministry of Health following are the details of deaths related to CTs registered in India from 2008 to August 2012:

Year Total no of deaths CT related deaths Compensation                  paid to patients:
2012 (up to August) 272 12 NA
2011 438 16 16
2010 668 22 22
2009 737 NA NA
2008 288 NA NA

It is estimated that over the last four years, on an average, 10 persons have died every week in India related to CT.

DCGI hauled-up 9 MNCs on patients’ compensation:

It is worth noting, absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, are being paid by the concerned companies, including large MNCs, for the lives lost during CTs.

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by 9 pharma MNCs, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related deaths, which ranged from an abysmal Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 2,500) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 5,000) to the families of the diseased.

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon the concerned nine pharma MNCs on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and give a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs by June 20, 2011, or else all CTs of these nine MNCs, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The 9 pharma MNCs summoned by the DCGI to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs were reported as Wyeth, Quintiles, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi, PPD and Pfizer.

The report also indicated that after this ultimatum, all the 9 MNCs had paid compensation to the concerned families of the patients, who died related to the CTs.

Prior indictment by Indian Parliamentary Committee:

On May 8, 2012, the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament.

The report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO under its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Action just not enough yet:

Acting on the damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 made the norms of compensation to patients participating in CTs more stringent. ‘Patient Compensation’ was proposed to include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CTs.

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some pharma companies, industry lobby groups and also Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) expressed concerns in areas like:

  • Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries.
  • Use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials.
  • Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and also lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

In addition, the DCGI requested the stakeholders’ to share their inputs to the independent experts advisory committee chaired by Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury along with six other distinguished members namely, Dr V. P. Kamboj, Dr BT Kaul, Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Dr Mira Shiva 
and Dr Uma Tekur, to help formulating policy, guidelines and SOPs for approval of NCEs/NMEs and procedures for CTs, including the conduct of ethics committees, the accreditation of trials sites, inspections of trials sites, the ongoing monitoring of trials and banning of drugs. The Government on February 6, 2013 constituted this Committee.

This decision of the regulator, though under pressure, was praiseworthy. Unfortunately nothing substantially changed on the ground for CTs in India even thereafter, as no substantive action has yet been taken on the above expert committee recommendations.

The report of the experts committee:

Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury experts committee in its 99-page report has reportedly recommended some radical changes in the CT space of India. Among others, the report includes the following:

  • Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.
  • Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI. 
  • For speedy clearance of applications, a broad expertise based Technical Review Committee (TRC) will replace 12 New Drug Advisory Committees (NDACs), which are currently functioning for NCE/NME approvals.
  • The TRC would be assisted, as required, by appropriate subject experts selected from the ‘Roster of Experts’.
  • For any Adverse Effects (AEs) or Serious Adverse Effects (SAEs) during a CT, the sponsor investigator will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at its/their cost till the resolution of the AEs/SAEs.
  • This is to be provided irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group.
  • A Special Expert Committee should be set up independent of the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to review all drug formulations in the market and identify drugs, which are potentially hazardous and/or of doubtful therapeutic efficacy.
  • A mechanism should be put in place to remove these drugs from the market by the CDSCO at the earliest.

Though some of the above provisions were vigorously objected by the industry during stakeholders’ consultations, the committee in its final report has upheld those recommendations.

The main worry – costs of CTs will go up:

CTs, as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context, the above suggestions, if implemented to create a safety net for the patients participating in CTs, will make these trials more expensive for the concerned companies with increased liability.

Hence, we hear a hue and cry, especially from the pharma MNCs. This is mainly because, India was, thus far, a low cost CT destination for them with virtually no liability for the drug trial patients. This is because, the poor and ill-informed subjects are left in the lurch by many companies exploiting the gaping holes existing in the fragile CT system of the country. After the intervention of the Supreme Court in this regard, some foreign players have reportedly suspended their CTs in India for reasons best known to them.

Exploitation of CT regulations:

The system of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, as it has long been tainted with widespread malpractices, abuses and misuses by many players, both global and local. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of an ethical mind-set and well-reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial-related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

Industry reactions:

Very interestingly, there have been a divergent sets of reactions from the industry on this issue.

An influential section in the CT space of the country has reacted, with gross indiscretion, to the most recent SC order banning CTs for NCEs/NMEs till a robust mechanism in India is put in place.

Commenting on the verdict, an industry leader has reportedly said:

“A black day for Indian science and a sad reflection on our judiciary”.

Such comments probably vindicate much talked about crony capitalistic mindset of this class. They do not hesitate a bit to display their scant respect even to the highest judiciary of the country, leave alone their glaring indifference to the important public health interest related issue. All such actions possibly emanate from the intense greed to protect and further the vested interests, not withstanding the gross injustice being meted out to the drug trial subjects as a consequence.

On the other hand, supporting the Supreme Court’s view, The Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR) reportedly has said:

“As a professional organization representing clinical research professionals across the stakeholder spectrum, ISCR is fully supportive of the need for a more robust and regulated environment for the conduct of clinical trials in India which ensures the practice of the highest standards of ethics and quality and where patient rights and safety are protected”.



ISCR further said, “As in every profession and industry, there will always be players who operate at both ends of the spectrum. While we do not condone any irregularities, we must acknowledge, there are several hundreds of clinical trials taking place in the country in compliance with international and local guidelines. There have been over 40 US FDA clinical trial audits done in India with no critical findings reported. There have also been several European regulatory audits of Indian clinical trial sites, again with no critical findings.”

That said, Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee, had commented on a ‘nexus between the industry and the drug regulator’ for continuation of such sorry state of affairs, since long.

‘Industry-pharma nexus’ in the USA too?

Recently, similar tricky relationship between the regulator and the pharma companies was unearthed again with the later paying hefty fees to attend meetings of a panel that advises the US FDA.

The article highlighted, an investigative report in the ‘Washington Post’ found that pharma companies paid as much as US$ 25,000 to attend sessions convened by a scientific panel on painkillers, and has led to claims that the industry was being given an opportunity to influence federal policy in this area.

Expected Government action:

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on October 24, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health reportedly held meetings with concerned officials to chalk out the strategy before the Court, when this case would come up for hearing after two weeks.

The report says, the Government is planning to place before the court a comprehensive plan with details of the existing mechanism and ongoing efforts like, bringing the the new Drugs and Cosmetic (Amendment) Bill 2013 and incorporation of Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury expert committee recommendations, to plug the loopholes in the new drug trial mechanism of the country. 

Conclusion:

While the importance of CTs to ensure better and more effective treatment for millions of patients in India is immense, it should not be allowed at the cost of patients’ safety, under any garb.  If the regulator overlooks this critical factor and some pharmaceutical players keep exploiting the system, judiciary has no option but to effectively intervene in response to PILs, as happened in this particular case too. 

Thus, I reckon, appropriate safety of human subjects participating in CTs and a fairplay in compensation, whenever justified, should be non-negotiable for the indian drug regulator. Despite reactions with indiscretion from a section of the industry, the Supreme Court is absolutely right to direct the DCGI to stop CTs for all NCEs/NMEs until the apex judiciary is satisfied that a robust system is in place for such trials in India. This will ensure, the scientific objectives of the CTs are properly achieved without any compromise on patients’ safety.

Breaking the nexus decisively between a section of the powerful pharmaceutical lobby group and the drug regulator, as highlighted even in the above Parliamentary Committee report, the Ministry of Health should, without any further delay, put in place a robust and transparent CT mechanism in India, come what may.

This well thought-out new system, besides ensuring patients’ safety and fairplay for all, will have the potential to help reaping a rich economic harvest through creation of a meaningful and vibrant CT industry in India, simultaneously benefitting millions of patients, as we move on.

That said, the moot question still remains: Will the drug regulator be able to satisfy the Supreme Court, as the two weeks expire, that appropriate mechanisms are in place to resume smooth conduct of CTs for the new drugs in India?

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.

 

Collaborative commercialization of inexpensive smaller incremental innovation in Chemistry will play an important role in bringing affordable new drugs or new drug delivery systems

Posted on by
Reply

It started in the 17th century:

Alchemy, a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, searching for a universal cure for disease and indefinitely prolonging life, not considered a science by many, gradually became the basis for the development of chemistry into the 17th century. However, perceivable impact of chemistry on humanity, through its smaller incremental innovation, started being felt only in the second half of the 19th century.

Chemistry – an interface between the physical world and humanity:

Experts in this field often opine that the current form of human civilization has been made possible, to a great extent, through significant advancement of such innovation in chemistry and its role in modern technology. Chemistry is indeed an interface between the physical world on the one hand and the humanity on the other.

Getting a perspective of resource and time requirements for such initiatives:

Is there any similarity between development of pharmaceutical chemistry and IT software?

Now a days, one finds a striking similarity between small incremental innovation in IT software and the same in pharmaceutical chemistry. Both are creative and belong to the knowledge economy. Scientists in both the communities try to generate innovative ideas, which can lead to their effective commercialization.

Resource requirements for these two are strikingly different:

However, the nature of the commercialization process of these two sciences, though seemingly similar in terms of innovativeness, is indeed quite different. In the software community, two people can implement an idea with minimal resource requirement and could end up with a profitable commercialized product, without much difficulty. In contrast, two chemists may come up with a brilliant idea, which in many cases, may require significant investment of resources much before to even think to get the initial product commercialized. Subsequent steps of scaling up will be a separate issue altogether, with more resource commitment.

The process of commercialization of smaller incremental innovation in pharmaceutical chemistry is much longer:

As we all know, the process of commercialization of incremental innovation in chemistry takes a much longer time scale, as these are not usually spare time projects, unlike computer softwares. The cost involved in testing out and implementing a new idea in chemistry is very high and may not even be possible without any robust institutional backing.

Target inexpensive smaller incremental innovation in pharmaceutical chemistry:

Some illustrative examples of such smaller incremental innovation in chemistry are as follows:

1. Development of pharmaceutical co-crystals

2. Merger of chemistry of traditional and modern medicines for synergy in both efficacy and safety

3. Chemical technology switch: taking technology of one field and transferring it to a different field to get a new drug substance

4. Application of polymorphic chemistry in drug discovery.

The process has begun:

International experience:

The chemistry department of Oxford University, U.K, which is incidentally the biggest chemistry department of the western world, has made significant advances in commercializing incremental innovation in chemistry. Among many, they created and commercialized the following three entities through such incremental innovation:

• Medisense

• Oxford Molecular

• Oxford Assymetry

The Indian experience:

Despite all challenges, in India, as well, the commercialization process of smaller incremental innovation in chemistry has already begun. The Chemistry Department of the University of Delhi has developed 11 patentable technologies for improved drug delivery system using nano-particles. One of such technologies was development of ‘smart’ hydrogel nano-particles for encapsulating water-soluble drugs. This technology was sold to Dabur Research Foundation in 1999.

Another nano-particle drug delivery technology in opthalmogy area was also commercialized by transferring it to Chandigarh based Panacea Biotech Ltd.

Conclusion:

This process is expected to gain momentum in our country too, contributing significantly to the progress of the healthcare sector of the nation. “Commercializing smaller incremental innovation in Pharmaceutical Chemistry”, I reckon, will play a key role in providing affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population, as India transforms itself into a knowledge superpower.

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.

Increasing socio-economic inequality within the healthcare delivery systems of India

Posted on by
Reply
Increasing inequality between the wide diversity of population of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in the socio-economic and cultural set up of India, clearly gets reflected in the healthcare delivery system of the country. Many research studies on this subject have established a clear relationship between healthcare services and socio-economic inequality. Several lakh of Indians still perish in the country because of this reason.
Economic growth needs to be inclusive – better said than done:
Initiation of financial reform measures since 1990 and the process of globalization during this period have spurred the economic growth of the country, the rate of which comes just next to China in the global scale of comparison for the same. However, many people strongly believe that this reform process has not been as inclusive as it should have been. Otherwise why will the country continue to witness worrisome instances of abject poverty within a large section of the society with an abnormally high rate of mortality?

Healthcare sector in India – huge socio-economic inequality:

According to the Investment Commission of India, the healthcare sector of the country has experienced rapid growth of around 12% since last 4 years and is expected to be of U.S. $ 280 billion industry by 2022.

However, due to socio-economic inequality, this growth has not been evenly distributed. As a result, 65% of the population of India still do not have access to modern medicines and a vast majority of the population experience poor healthcare facilities. Around 10 lakh women and children die in India either due to poor access to healthcare services or they cannot afford the healthcare expenses.

Centers of excellence – but not for all:

In the healthcare sector, despite having many centers of excellence of global standards, which are also attracting ‘medical tourists‘ from across the world, healthcare needs of a large number of population of the country are not being addressed adequately. About 700 million of population have no access to specialists’ care even today. The Government of India alone will not be able to address this problem of gigantic proportion without workable and time-bound Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives with an investment of over U.S $ 20 billion at least for next five years. For example, in terms of availability of hospital beds per 1000 population, India stands at 0.7 against 3.96 of world average.

“Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid” – anybody follows in India?

Professor C. K. Prahalad’s famous dictum, “Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid” has not been realised yet by many within the global healthcare industry, perhaps with the solitary exception of Andrew Witty, the young CEO of GlaxoSmithKline.

As per data available from the Government publications, the bottom of the pyramid where a large proportion of the Indian population is located, reflects a huge socio-economic inequality even in the healthcare sector as follows:

• Overall spending on healthcare in India is around 6% of GDP (Public and Private sectors put together). However the public expenditure is only 0.9% of the total spending.

• In rural areas per capita expenditure on healthcare is seven times lower than urban areas.

• In rural areas the ratio of hospital beds to population is fifteen times lower than the urban areas.

• In rural areas the ratio of doctors to population is almost six times lower than the urban areas.

• The rate of Infant Mortality in the 20% of the poorest population is 2.5 times higher than the richest 20% of the population in rural areas.

• Despite more health issues an individual from the poorest quintile of the population is six times less likely to access hospitalization than a person from the richest quintile in rural areas.

• From the poorest quintile of the population, the child delivery of a mother is over six times less likely to be attended by a medically trained person than during child delivery of a mother from the richest quintile of the population in rural areas.

• On an average 78% healthcare expenditure in India comes as ‘out of pocket payments’ by the people, whereas only 18% of the same is borne by the state followed by 4% by medical insurance.

• Towards public healthcare spending, only five other countries in the world (Pakistan, Burundi, Myanmar, Cambodia and Sudan) are worse off than India.

• Only 38% of all Public Health Centres (PHCs) have essential manpower and only 31% have the essential supplies with only 3% of PHCs having 80% of all critical inputs.

As a result of inadequate and unequal spending on the healthcare infrastructure, healthcare systems, healthcare financing and healthcare delivery, both by the public and private sectors in the rural areas, such inequalities towards access and affordability of the healthcare services,especially in rural India where over 70% of the country’s population reside, have now assumed an alarming proportion .

Access to healthcare is fundamental in many countries of the world:

Most of the developed countries of the world extend comprehensive healthcare access to its citizens. Even our close neighbour Thailand and Fidel Castro’s land, Cuba along with many other developing countries of the world extend basic healthcare facilities to all their citizens.

Urban poor also face the harsh reality of healthcare affordability issue:

Survey results indicate the following facts so far as urban poor are concerned:

• Healthcare facilities though skewed towards urban India, the healthcare cost, lack of culturally appropriate services; social prejudices etc prevent access to healthcare even to the urban poor.

• Infant and under-five mortality rates in the urban slums for the poorest 40% are as high as is prevalent in the rural areas.

• Because of mainly poverty, poor hygienic and almost non-existent sanitation conditions, urban slums have now become the breeding ground for diseases like cholera, malaria, hepatitis, tuberculosis, HIV – AIDS and a large variety of infectious disease.

All these conditions coupled with almost total lack of health education in slums further aggravate the healthcare situation.

Has the National Health Policy delivered?

It is widely believed that Infant and Maternal Mortality rates of a country are the most important indicators of the health of any society. For the year 2000 The National Health Policy of India had set a target to bring down the Maternal Mortality Rate to below 200 per 1 lakh live births. However, even today around 407 mothers die every year due to pregnancy related complications. So far as infant mortality is concerned the figure remain as high as 22 lakh every year.

A very sad state of public healthcare delivery system gets reflected through these very basic numbers, despite various government initiatives and mushrooming private and corporate investments towards healthcare. The privileged class of the society, as a result, is getting better and better private healthcare services and the under-privileged class is denied of, in many cases, even the very basic healthcare facilities. All these bring out to the open the social and economic inequality in our civil society even for the very basic healthcare needs of its citizens.

Growth of Private Healthcare initiatives is welcome, but are they maintaining an urban-rural balance?

Urban centric private healthcare sector in India is growing at a faster pace. However, overwhelming dominance of this sector in absence of robust PPPs will further increase the urban bias with focus on higher profit margin being more important than offering primary and secondary healthcare services to a large number of the deprived population with lesser profit margin. Following published facts may help understand the prevailing situation:

• The increasing cost of healthcare paid predominantly through ‘out of pocket’ is making healthcare unaffordable to a large number of the population.

• The number of people who are unable to seek healthcare services due to affordability issue is growing, despite rapid economic growth of the country.

• The number of people who cannot afford to basic healthcare services has doubled compared to just a decade ago.

• One in three people who need hospitalization and paying ‘out of pocket’ are forced to borrow money or sell assets to cover healthcare expenses.

• Because of ‘out of pocket’ spending on healthcare, over 20 million Indians are pushed below the poverty line every year.

• A World Bank report acknowledges the facts that doctors recommend unnecessary investigations and over-prescribe drugs in private healthcare sector.

• The same report acknowledges the relationship between the quality and cost of healthcare services in the private healthcare system with high priced services being excellent but unaffordable to many.

Conclusion:

All these facts will further establish the prevalent socio-economic inequality within the healthcare delivery systems of India. Rapidly growing urban centric private healthcare initiatives are welcome but these are now just catering to the privileged few, keeping the pressing healthcare issues of India unanswered. Only well planned time-bound PPP initiatives, in my view, are capable to address the humongous healthcare issues of 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.