Tag Archives: than

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Posted on by
Reply

On March 12, 2012, the Patent Office of India, in its landmark ruling, granted its first ever Compulsory License (CL) for Bayer’s patented kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar (Sorafenib), to the generic pharma player Natco, broadly citing the following reasons:

  • Reasonable requirements of public under Section 84 have not been satisfied.
  • The Patented Drug was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price as per Section 84 (1) (b).
  • Patented invention is not worked in the territory of India as per Section 84 (1) (c)

The 62 page order of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM) granted the CL to Natco for the rest of patent life of sorafenib in India at the high end of the UNDP 2001 royalty guidelines at 6 percent.

Sorafenib:

Sorafenib was co-developed and co-marketed by Bayer and Onyx Pharmaceuticals  for the treatment of advanced  renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. The drug got its first regulatory approval from the US FDA for advanced renal cell carcinoma in 2005.

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of UK had indicated that the drug extends life of the kidney cancer patients by three months on an average.

As stated earlier, in March 2008, Indian patent for Sorafenib was granted to Bayer by the CGPDTM. Thereafter, in December 2010 Natco had requested for a voluntary license from Bayer, which was rejected by the patentee.

It has been reported that sorafenib was registered as an ‘orphan drug’ in the US. The R&D cost of sorafenib was partly subsidized by the US Orphan Drug tax credit.

Mixed reaction:

Though the research based pharmaceutical industry across the world expressed its disappointment over the judgment, many experts and NGOs from different parts of the globe have opined that CGPDTM has set a right precedence by granting a CL for sorafenib, which will ensure, in the times to come, that patent monopolies are kept limited, especially when the patented products are not “reasonably affordable”.

Many people, therefore, envisage that the grant of the first ever CL by the Indian Patent Office could ultimately open the door for other generics players of India to apply for the same on similar grounds and mainly for ‘non-working of patents’, as many patented medicines are now imported into India by the respective global players.

Granting CL should be the last resort:

While none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to innovative and lifesaving medicines, as will be required for their medical treatment, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine issue of CL by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve this critical issue on a long term basis.  Grant of CL, if any, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Working of a patent:

In this particular case, it has been decided by the CGPDTM that working of a patent will require the concerned company to manufacture the drug in India in a reasonable quantity. The argument of the CGPDTM in this respect, many experts believe, is quite a stretch of an interpretation of the statute.

This is mainly because, as one of the signatories of TRIPS, India has a national commitment for adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed, if importation is not considered as working of patent, the country could expose itself to the risk of  violation of the Article 27.1 of TRIPS, both in letter and spirit.

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS:

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS on ‘local working of patents’ indicates as follows:

“1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”

Thus as per Article 27.1 of TRIPS, if commercialization of products patented in India, is done locally either through imports or local manufacturing, should be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Form 27 vindicates the fact:

Form 27 of the Indian Patents Act, which is a statement regarding the working of patented inventions on commercial scale in India, in its point number 3, under ‘if worked’ states as follows:

“If worked: quantum and value (in Rupees) of the patented product:

  1. Manufactured in India
  2. Imported from other countries (give country-wise details)”

Thus, when Form 27 itself accepts importation as ‘local working of patent’, it is indeed intriguing why was the decision to the contrary taken by the CGPDTM?

Moreover, it is worth noting that the term ‘manufacture in India’ was deleted from the earlier Section 90 (a) of the Patents Act.

A statutory requirement:

CGPDTM through a circular dated December 24, 2009, directed all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Local Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act.

It will be interesting to know, whether CGPDTM in response to Form 27 submissions of Bayer had informed them earlier that the Nexavar Patent has not been worked in India. If not, what is then the sanctity of Form 27 filing?

Delhi High Court Judgment:

Further, it has been well reported that in the legal case of ‘Telemecanique & Controls (I) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industries SA 94(2001)DLT865’ on working of patents, the Delhi High Court had concluded that importation would amount to working of Patents.

India specific pricing for innovative drugs is not uncommon:

At this stage, it is worth mentioning that India specific pricing for innovative drugs are not uncommon in the country at all. Following are some good examples:

  • GlaxoSmithKline  Pharmaceuticals has already announced its differential pricing system for India and will sell its innovative drugs at prices 25% to 40% less than what those are in the US.
  • MSD  has already introduced its India specific price for patented products. Their patented cervical cancer drug Gardasil is being sold in India at 75% -80% less than the global prices.
  • Moreover, MSD’s patented anti-diabetic drug Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) is locally sourced and marketed at one-tenth of the global price.
  • In 2008 Novartis  reportedly tied up with the domestic pharma major USV to market its patented anti-diabetic drug Galvus (Vildagliptin) by pricing it lower than Januvia. According to reports, Novartis markets Galvus in the metros, while USV markets the same brand in tier two and three cities of India.
  • Roche  has recently collaborated with the domestic pharma player Emcure Pharmaceuticals to manufacture its two well-known biologics Herceptin and MabThera not only to cater to the domestic needs, but also for export to other developing markets.

Manufacturing of a small quantity locally – an issue:

As quoted in the order of the CGPDTM there are around 8842 eligible patients for sorafenib in India. All these patients put together will require Nexavar ranging from 27000 (Bayer’s figure) to 70000 boxes (NATCO’s figure) per year.  Thus, the moot question remains: even for such small annual requirements, should global companies set up manufacturing facilities in all the countries like, India.

Another question: if other smaller markets of the world also make local manufacturing mandatory for any pharmaceutical products that will be sold in their respective countries, will the Indian players find those markets attractive enough to expand their business? In that case who will be the net losers?… Patients?

Conclusion:

If the issue of whether importation will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not is not answered conclusively under higher judicial scrutiny in conformity of Article 27.1 of TRIPS and CL is granted to local manufacturers for commercial benefits under similar situation, availability of life saving innovative products in the Indian market for the patients of India could be in a real jeopardy.

The objective of improving access to innovative medicines is a very desirable one for any country like ours. However, if India routinely starts granting CL for this purpose before exhausting all other avenues to achieve this goal, it would risk sending a very wrong signal to the outside world that the country is shirking its responsibilities to create an appropriate ecosystem to foster and support pharmaceutical innovation to offer better quality of lives to the citizens of the country in particular.

In the absence of both collaboration and foreign direct investments by the global innovators in the field of pharmaceutical research and development, India may feel handicapped, especially when our neighbor China is surging ahead in this field with longer strides.

Thus, routine grant of CL, as is being envisaged by many in India, on a similar situation could, on the contrary, make the issue of access to innovative medicines by the common man even more challenging, in the longer run.

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.

Encourage vaccine research and improve its access to demonstrate ‘prevention is better than cure’

Posted on by
Reply

Vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions, which help preventing over 2 million deaths every year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccines as:

“A vaccine is any preparation intended to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies. Vaccines include, for example, suspensions of killed or attenuated microorganisms, or products or derivatives of microorganisms. The most common method of administering vaccines is by injection, but some are given by mouth or nasal spray.”

Types of Vaccines:

As per the ‘National Institute of Health (NIH)’ of USA, following are some types of vaccines that researchers usually work on:

  • Live, attenuated vaccines
  • Inactivated vaccines
  • Subunit vaccines
  • Toxoid vaccines
  • Conjugate vaccines
  • DNA vaccines
  • Recombinant vector vaccines

The first vaccine:

In 1796, Edward Anthony Jenner not only discovered the process of vaccination, alongside developed the first vaccine of the world for mankind – smallpox vaccine. To develop this vaccine Jenner acted upon the observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox.

As per published data prior to his discovery the mortality rate for smallpox was as high as up to 35%. Thus, Jenner is very often referred to as the “Father of Immunology”, whose pioneering work has “saved more lives than the work of any other person.”

Later on in 1901 Emil Von Behring received the first Nobel Prize (ever) for discovering Diphtheria serum therapy.

The future scope of vaccines:

The future scope of vaccines is immense as several potentially preventable diseases, as indicated below remain still unaddressed.

Examples of effective Vaccines Examples of Potentially VaccineTreatable Diseases
Bacterial
  • Diphtheria
  • Haemophilus influenza type B
  • Meningitis A, C
  • Pneumococcus
  • Enterococcus
  • Meningitis B, W, Y
  • Group A Streptococcus
  • Staphylococcus
Viral
  • Varicella
  • Hepatitis B and C
  • Influenza
  • Polio
  • Pandemic influenza
  • RSV
  • West Nile Virus
  • Epstein Barr Virus
Other
  • Cancer
  • Alzheimer’s disease
  • Substance abuse
  • Autoimmune disorders

Source: Deutsche Bank Report 

Expanded focus for vaccines:

The focus of the global vaccine industry also has been expanded from prophylactic vaccination for communicable disease (e.g. DTP vaccine) to therapeutic vaccines (e.g. Anti-cancer vaccines) and then possibly non-communicable disease vaccines (e.g. vaccines for coronary artery disease).

The Issues and Challenges:

To produce a safe and effective marketable vaccine, it takes reportedly around 12 to 15 years of painstaking research and development process involving an investment ranging between US $500 million and over $1 billion dollars (Ibid, 7).

Moreover, one will need to realize that the actual cost of vaccines will always go much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for mass-scale production of vaccines and then for the distribution of the same mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60% of the production costs for vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable.

Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Thus, the long lead time required for the ‘mind to market’ process for vaccine development together with high cost involved in their clinical trials/marketing approval process, special bulk/institutional purchase price and limited demand through retail outlets, restrict the research and development initiatives for vaccines, unlike many other pharmaceutical products.

Besides, even the newer vaccines will be required mostly for the diseases of the poor, like Malaria, Tuberculosis, HIV and ‘Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’ in the developing countries, which may not necessarily guarantee a decent return on investments for vaccines, unlike many other newer drugs. As a result, the key issue for developing a right type of newer vaccine will continue to be a matter of pure economics.

A great initiative called GAVI: 

Around 23 million children of the developing countries are still denied of important and life-saving vaccines, which otherwise come rather easily to the children of the developed nations of the world.

To resolve this inequity in January 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) was formed. This initiative was mainly aimed at generating sufficient fund to ensure availability of vaccines for children living in the 70 poorest countries of the world.

The GAVI Alliance has been instrumental in improving access to six common infant vaccines, including those for hepatitis B and yellow fever. GAVI is also working to introduce pneumococcal, rotavirus, human papilloma virus, meningococcal, rubella and typhoid vaccines in not too distant future.

A recent example:

As if to vindicate the above points, Reuters on December 16, 2011 reported that  “Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are increasing sales of cut-price pneumonia vaccine to developing countries by more than 50 percent, marking the scale-up of an international program to protect millions of children.

GAVI is buying an additional 180 million doses of Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine Prevenar 13 and a similar quantity of GSK’s Synflorix at a deeply discounted price of US $3.50 a shot.”

Success with vaccines in disease prevention:

Diphtheria incidence in the US  – Mortality 5/10,000 cases Peak Incidence (1921) Incidence today

2,06,939

1

 

Tetanus incidence in the US – Mortality 3/10 cases Peak Incidence (1927) Incidence today

1,314

40

 

H. Influenza type B incidence in the US – Mortality 2-3/100 cases Peak Incidence (1927) Incidence today

20,000

363

Source: Ehreth Vaccine 21:4105-4117

Development of vaccines through the passage of time:

No. of vaccines

Year

Vaccines
1. 1780-1800

Smallpox

(first vaccine for any disease)
2. 1860-1880

Cholera
1880-1900

Rabies
6.

Tetanus

Typhoid fever

Bubonic plague
11 1920-1940

Diphtheria

Pertussis

Tuberculosis

Yellow fever

Typhus
16 1940-1960

Influenza

Polio

Japanese encephalitis

Anthrax

Adenovirus-4 and 7
24 1960-1980

Oral polio

Measles

Mumps

Rubella

Chicken pox

Pneumonia

Meningitis

Hepatitis B
28 1980-2000

Haemophilus influenzae type b

Hepatitis A

Lyme disease

Rotavirus
29 2000-2010

Human papilloma virus

Current trend in vaccine development:

Malarial Vaccine:

Reuters on December 20, 2011 reported that an experimental malaria vaccine has been developed by the British scientists, which has the potential to neutralize all strains of the most deadly species of malaria parasite.

In October 2011, the data published for a large clinical trial conducted in Africa by GlaxoSmithKline on their experimental malaria vaccine revealed that the risk of children getting malaria had halved with this vaccine. Reuters also reported that other teams of researchers around the world are now working on different approaches to develop a malaria vaccine.

Tuberculosis vaccines:

On August 11, 2011, Aeras and the Oxford-Emergent Tuberculosis Consortium (OETC) announced with a ‘Press Release’ the commencement of a Phase IIb ‘proof-of-concept efficacy trial’ of a new investigational tuberculosis (TB) vaccine. OETC indicated that clinical trial for the drug will be undertaken by them in Senegal and South Africa with primary funding support from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP).

Cancer vaccines:

Cancer vaccines are, in fact, biological response modifiers, which work by stimulating or restoring the ability of the immune system to fight the disease. There are two broad types of cancer vaccines:

  • Preventive vaccines:  To prevent cancer in healthy people
  • Therapeutic vaccines:  To treat cancer by strengthening the natural defense mechanism of the human body against the disease.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) has approved the following cancer vaccines, which protect against two types of HPV that cause approximately 70% of all cases of cervical cancer globally:

  • Gardasil of Merck & Company
  • Cervarix of  GlaxoSmithKline

The US FDA has also approved a cancer preventive vaccine that protects against HBV infection, which can cause liver cancer. It has been reported that the original HBV vaccine was approved in 1981 and currently most children in the US are vaccinated against HBV after their birth.

In addition, the US regulator has also approved a cancer vaccine for treatment of certain types of metastatic prostate cancer.

HIV Vaccines:

‘The AIDS Vaccine 2011 conference’ held in Bangkok in the month of September, 2011 discussed some of the latest findings on the following two vaccines for prevention and control of HIV disease progression:

  • A large trial of RV 144 vaccine in Thailand demonstrated the proof of concept that a preventive vaccine with a risk reduction of 31% could effectively work.  The trial was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS.
  • Bionor Pharma announced that clinical trial participants who received Vacc-4x “experienced a 70% viral load decrease relative to their level before starting Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART), compared with no notable reduction among placebo recipients.”

Promising ‘Therapeutic Vaccines’ undergoing clinical trial:

‘FierceVaccines’ in its October 27, 2011 reported the following 10 most promising therapeutic vaccines, which are now undergoing clinical trials on humans:

Molecule Company Indication
ICT-107 ImmunoCellular Therapeutics Glioblastoma
VGX-3100 Inovio Pharmaceuticals Cervical cancer
MAGE-A3 GlaxoSmithKline Skin, lung cancer
Neu-Vax RXi Pharmaceuticals Breast cancer
AE37 Antigen Express Breast cancer
NexVax2 ImmusanT Celiac disease
ADXS-HPV Advaxis Cervical, head and neck cancer
CRS-207 Aduro BioTech Pancreatic cancer
PEV7 Pevion Biotech Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis
GI-4000 GlobeImmune Pancreatic cancer

Future scope for cancer vaccines:

One school of scientists firmly believes that out of all cancers diagnosed each year globally, various types of microbes contribute 15% to 25% as a causative factor for this dreaded disease, as indicated below:

Infectious Agents

Type of Organism

Associated Cancers
Hepatitis B virus (HBV)

Virus

 Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Hepatitis C virus (HCV)

Virus

 Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16 and 18, as well as other HPV types

Virus

 Cervical cancer; vaginal cancer;vulvar cancer; oropharyngeal cancer(cancers of the base of the tongue,

tonsils, or upper throat);

anal cancer; penile cancer;

squamous cell carcinoma of the skin
Epstein-Barr virus

Virus

 Cancer of the upper part ofthe throat behind the nose
Human herpes virus 8 (HHV8)

Virus

 Kaposi sarcoma
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus

Virus

 Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma
Helicobacter pylori

Bacterium

 Stomach cancer
Schistosomes

Parasite

 Bladder cancer
Liver flukes

Parasite

 Cholangio carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)

Source: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

These findings open the doors of unique opportunities to develop both preventive and therapeutic vaccines to address the life threatening near fatal ailment of mankind – cancer.

Conclusion:

Developing countries of the world are now demanding more of those vaccines, which no longer feature in the immunization schedules of the developed nations. Thus to supply these vaccines at low cost will be a challenge, especially for the global vaccine manufacturers, unless the low margins get well compensated by high institutional demand.

To effectively focus on all important disease prevention initiatives, there is also a need to build a vibrant vaccine business sector in India. To achieve these dual objectives the government should create an enabling ecosystem for the vaccine manufacturers, academics and the government funded vaccine R&D centers to concentrate more with the relevant vaccine development projects ensuring a decent return on investments, for long term public health interest.

More often than not, the above stakeholders find it difficult to deploy sufficient fund to take their vaccine projects successfully through various stages of clinical development to obtain marketing approval from the drug regulator, working out a decent return on investments. This critical issue needs to be appropriately and urgently addressed by the Government to make the disease prevention initiatives in the country sustainable, demonstrating to all concerned that disease ‘prevention is better than cure’.

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.

Maintaining Supply Chain Security in pharmaceuticals: The need is now more than ever before.

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s globalized economy maintaining Supply Chain Security (SCS), especially in the pharmaceutical sector across the world, is more critical than ever before. We have many instances of SCS being seriously breached, not only in the emerging pharmaceutical markets but also in the developed markets of the world.

Global examples of serious SCS violations:

Following are some at random examples of serious SCS violations globally in the recent times:

  • In 2007, over 300 people died in Panama in Central America after consuming a cough medication containing diethylene glycol, which was labeled as glycerin. The adulterant diethylene glycol was sourced from China and was relabeled as glycerin by a middleman in Spain, as reported by the media.
  • In March 2008, the US FDA prompted by around 81 drug related deaths in the USA, announced a large scale recall of Heparin injection, a well-known blood thinner from Baxter Healthcare suspecting contamination of a raw material sourced from China. Standard technology used by Baxter could not detect the contaminant, which the regulator considered as a deliberate adulteration. The contaminant was eventually identified as an over sulfated derivative of chondroitin sulfate, which costs a fraction of original heparin derivative. The ‘Heparin tragedy’ raised, possibly for the first time, the need of working out an algorithm to put in place a robust system for ‘supply chain security’. This need has now become critical as many pharmaceutical players, including those in India, are increasingly outsourcing the API, other ingredients and almost entire logistics from third parties.
  • ‘Business Standard’ dated August 24, 2011 reported that Ranbaxy Laboratories and the US health regulator are negotiating a settlement to lift a ban on the sale of the drugs produced at 2 of the company’s plants in India, which could involve payments and fines exceeding $1 billion. This ban, as the report says, dates back to 2008, when the US regulator banned 30 generic drugs produced by the company at its Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) and Paonta Sahib and Batamandi unit in Himachal Pradesh, citing gross violations of approved manufacturing norms.
  • ‘Business Ethics’ – the Magazine of Corporate Responsibility reported, “GSK facility in Puerto Rico suffered from long standing problems of product mix-ups, which caused tablets of one drug type and strength to be commingled with tablets of another drug type and/or strength in the same bottle…the subsidiary’s manufacturing operations failed to ensure that Kytril, an anti-nausea medication, and Bactroban, a topical anti-infection ointment, were free of contamination from micro organisms.” As a result, the US Justice Department reportedly announced, “GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (GSK) and the subsidiary agreed to pay US$750 million to settle charges that between 2001 and 2005 they distributed adulterated drugs made at GSK’s now-closed manufacturing facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico”.
  • As reported by Reuter, on April 30, 2010 recalled over 43 children’s medicines involving 136 million units and 12 countries in response to complaints from regulators and customers.  This recall included liquid versions of Tylenol, Tylenol Plus, Mortin, Zyrtec and Benadryl, as they “may not fully meet the required manufacturing specifications.”

Despite presence of one of the most stringent drug regulators, the issue bothers even the US:

In the wake of all these, ‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported, despite the fact that US now imports more than 80% of APIs and 40% of finished drugs mainly from India, China and elsewhere, the agency conducts far fewer foreign inspections as compared to domestic inspections. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Ann Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

At another conference Ms. Hamburg said, “I think people have no idea in this country and around the world about the vulnerability of things that we count on every day and that we have a system that has big gaps in our protective mechanisms.”

FDA inspects only a fraction of foreign drug plants in the global outsourcing wave:

The investigative arm of US Congress, the Government Accountability Office reported, while US FDA inspected 40% of domestic manufacturing facilities in 2009, it inspected just 11% of the foreign manufacturing facilities, as the later outnumbered the domestic sites since 2008.

INSPECTIONS BY FDA

ESTIMATED PLANTS IN FDA INVENTORY 2009

2007

2008

2009

 TOTAL
India

64

64

59

187

502
China

19

36

52

107

920
Germany

26

34

36

96

228
Italy

28

28

30

86

168
Canada

20

19

35

74

310
U.K.

16

17

32

65

191
France

24

14

26

64

188
Japan

22

17

20

59

207
Switzerland

17

15

18

50

100
Ireland

14

11

19

44

63
All others

83

69

97

249

888
Total

333

324

424

1,081

3,765

NOTE: Most frequently inspected foreign countries. SOURCE: Government Accountability Office.

US FDA’s Counterfeit Drug Initiative:

The initiative includes the following measures:

  • Secure the product and packaging
  • Secure the movement of drugs through the supply chain
  • Secure business transactions
  • Ensure appropriate regulatory oversight and enforcement
  • Increase penalties
  • Heighten vigilance and awareness
  • International cooperation.

If such instances are available from the developed markets of the world, especially from the US, one can well imagine what is happening in the emerging markets of the world. In the developed markets, at least these are detected and rectifying measures are taken. Unfortunately, in the emerging markets scores of such criminal instances go undetected taking innocent lives of the patients.

Fast growing global outsourcing initiatives have increased the risks by manifold:

Thus even the US FDA acknowledged that fast growth of globalization in drug manufacturing has outstripped the agency’s resource pool for effectively inspecting all overseas outsourcing facilities.

As a result of the outsourcing wave in the US, the number of US FDA approved local drug manufacturing sites in the country is gradually coming down since 2008, with a commensurate increase in the number of foreign sites.

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008a*

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

2625

1150

2700

1500

2900

2000

3000

2500

2480

3800

NOTE: US FDA-registered drug-manufacturing sites with at least one product listed in FDA database. *a Preliminary estimates. SOURCE: US FDA

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

Pharmaceutical players and the drug regulators from across the world should put proper ‘fool proof’ systems in place to eliminate the growing menace of criminal adulteration of APIs, drug intermediates, excipients entering in the supply chain together with preventing any breach in their logistics support systems.

Regulators fail to keep pace with the fast growth of global generic industry:

Many feel a shift in prescription towards generic drugs, especially in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the US, is making the regulatory task of the FDA to inspect all drug ingredient suppliers indeed quite challenging.

Currently, 70% of all prescriptions in the US are contributed by the generic drugs, which indeed play an important role to contain the health care cost. However, as an innovative drug goes off patent a single manufacture’s product gets transferred to multiple manufacturers located across the world, making the task of the drug regulator to ensure high quality and safety standard of the same drug extremely challenging.

Conclusion:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively. All pharmaceutical players should realize that an integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company, especially when counterfeiters find ways to bypass any such system very quickly.

Like other industries, in the pharmaceutical sector, as well, cost effective procurement is critical, which makes many pharmaceutical players, especially, in the generic industry not to go for such expensive process just to maintain the SCS.

Thus a strong corporate governance mechanism in all pharmaceutical companies must ensure, come what may, putting in place a robust SCS system is not compromised in any way… ever… for patients’ sake.

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.

Does China provide a more robust IPR environment than India?

Posted on by
Reply

Soon after the Product Patent Act was reintroduced in India effective January 1, 2005, a raging global debate commenced focusing on the robustness of the Indian Patent system. Quite often, many participants in the debate continue to compare the adequacies of the Chinese patent system with the inadequacies of the same in India.

‘The Pharma Letter’ dated October 26, 2010 published an Article captioned, “Intellectual property concerns and domestic bias hold back R&D in Asia-Pacific.”

Asia-Pacific still lags behind in terms of global R&D investments:

Unlike the common perception in India that China is attracting a significant part of the global investments towards R&D, latest data of MedTRACK revealed that only 15% of all drugs development are taking place in Asia-Pacific despite the largest growth potential of the region in the world. The Pharma Letter also reported, “In December 2009, China unveiled that it would give domestic companies making innovative products an advantage in qualifying for government purchases. This measure is likely to further limit foreign investment in product development in China, and negatively affect growth of foreign brands.”

Such type of domestic bias and protectionist’s measures are yet to be witnessed in India.

Since US is a pioneering country in the field of global R&D and its commercial interest related to such initiatives spans across the globe, let me try to analyze this subject, in this article, quoting only from official US publications.

IPR environment in China – the US perspective:

So far as the current IPR environment in China is concerned, US Embassy based in that country has commented as follows:

“Despite stronger statutory protection, China continues to be a haven for counterfeiters and pirates. According to one copyright industry association, the piracy rate remains one of the highest in the world (over 90 percent) and U.S. companies lose over one billion dollars in legitimate business each year to piracy. On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated. U.S. companies are not alone, as pirates and counterfeiters target both foreign and domestic companies”.

In the same context the following remarks of Mr. Shaun Donnelly, Senior Director, International Business policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) , USA, made at the Intenational Trade Commission on June 15, 2010 on IPR environment in China, is also quite interesting:

“Unfortunately China remains Ground Zero for international product counterfeiting and Piracy. Despite considerable efforts over many years by US Government agencies and other international partners as well as Chinese Government the Progress has been minimal…. China continued to be the number one source country for pirated goods seized in the US borders accounting for 79% of the total seizures…The top sectors of IPR infringing products seized included footwear, consumer electronics, apparel, computer hardware, pharmaceuticals…”

Patent enforcement in China – the US perspective:

Regarding product patent enforcement is concerned the US Embassy in China comments:

“Though we have observed commitment on the part of many central government officials to tackle the problem, enforcement measures taken to date have not been sufficient to deter massive IPR infringements effectively. There are several factors that undermine enforcement measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to combat IPR infringements, corruption and local protectionism, limited resources and training available to enforcement officials, and lack of public education regarding the economic and social impact of counterfeiting and piracy”.

“Notwithstanding the increased number of applications, many patent owners (both foreign and domestic) continue to experience problems with infringement in China. Counterfeiting and other infringing activities are rampant, and critics frequently complain of lax enforcement of intellectual property laws. As a result, any party considering introducing a patented (or patentable) technology into China – especially one that could be easily reverse engineered or duplicated – would be well advised to proceed with extreme caution, seek legal advice from the outset, and plan fastidiously”.

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) in India:

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) for Pharmaceutical Products is still not in place in India, as the Government of India has already articulated that RDP is a ‘TRIPS Plus’ requirement and is non-binding to the country. The Government further reiterated that if any or more interested parties will feel that it is not so, they can certainly go to the WTO forum for the redressal of their grievances in this matter.

RDP in China – the US perspective:

However, on this subject the US feels that though RDP for a 5 year period is now in place in China, ‘inadequacies in their current regulatory environment allow for unfair commercial use of safety and efficacy data generated by the global innovator companies.”

In such a scenario the sanctity of RDP gets significantly diluted and may prove to be a virtually meaningless exercise.

Conclusion:

R. Fernando and D. Purkayastha of ICMR Center for Management Research in their article titled, “Pfizer’s Intellectual Property Rights Battles in China for Viagra” had commented as follows:

“Though the foreign research-based pharmaceutical companies were not happy with the lax IPR regime, the booming Chinese pharmaceutical market provided enough incentive for these companies to stay put and fight it out with the local firms for a share in this emerging market”.

Under these circumstances, while recommending for a world class robust patent regime in India to foster innovation in the country, if anybody wants to draw examples from China on the subject, it would indeed be foolhardy.

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.

Challenges for the Pharmaceutical Industry in the new paradigm – there are more questions than answers

Posted on by
Reply

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’of U.K recently conducted a study with a sizeable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional areas like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas.
The study indicates that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic approach. Besides this finding, my experience also vindicates that today is not a mega yesterday, just as tomorrow will not be a mega today.
Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Gaining greater market access and increasing pressure of price containment:

The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing pressure. This critical development together with the issues related to gaining greater market access remain a prime concern for the future.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the doctors and patients will increasingly look for beyond the physical pharmaceutical products, will indeed be the cutting edge for the winners, in this new ball game.

Questioning the relevance of the current business model:
Top managements of the pharmaceutical companies have already started evaluating the relevance of the current global pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus. Only treatment of diseases will not be considered just enough with an offering of various type medications. Added value with disease prevention initiatives and appropriately managing quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process.

Greater innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain:
Greater and more frequent incremental innovation across the pharmaceutical Value Chain will be critical success factors. The ability to really harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be an important part of the business strategy of a pharmaceutical company in the new world order.

Well integrated decision making processes:
More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition, especially in the branded generic market, have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Avoiding silos and empire building have long been a significant issue, especially for big pharmaceutical companies. Part of better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient investment decisions and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications and will no longer deliver incremental intrinsic or extrinsic differential value to the stakeholders.

Customer engagement:
Growing complexity of the prevailing business environment, including most recent change in the MCI regulations for the doctors are making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communications channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors and patients and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required.

Let me hasten to add, even in the new paradigm, the fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry has been attempting to address these critical issues over decades, has not changed much. To unleash the future growth potential the pharmaceutical companies are still moving around the same old issues like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, customer focus, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building mega product brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few.

Such responses do ring an alarm bell to me. It is known to many that most of the pharmaceutical companies have been investing in all these areas since long and yet these are the very points being highlighted even in the new paradigm to meet the “Challenge of Change”. The moot question will therefore be, what have all investments in these areas achieved, so far? And why have we not been able to address the needs of the new world order focusing with these tools? More importantly, if we do not address these issues moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’ even now, one can well imagine what could the implications be in the times to come?

The future Business Model will need to different:
I believe, the underlying business model of large global organizations focused primarily on developing New Chemical/Molecular Entities (NCEs/NMEs) from initial product discovery through development and commercialization, is unlikely to continue to yield results in the new era. The issue of ‘Patent Cliff’ has already started haunting the research based companies and assuming larger dimensions day by day.
Global pharmaceutical businesses have started evolving beyond patented drugs and including generics to create more diversified and robust healthcare businesses. It is quite evident from the strategies of many larger global pharmaceutical companies that this process has already begun.

Will R&D be collaborative in nature in future?
Currently R&D cost to launch a new patented drug in the market is reported to be around US$ 1.8 – 2.0 billion with accompanying huge risk factors. Thus there is a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors.
Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the risk and reward of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction.
Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy but they are not uncommon either, as we witness these, especially in areas like IT. So why cost effective collaborative R&D projects be not initiated to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the healthcare space?

Could building pharmaceutical mega brands go beyond just a product for better ROI?
Building brands involve creating equity around an entity that delivers value to the customer, over and above the key functional properties of product. Traditionally, the global pharmaceutical industry has been largely focusing on building mega product brands having specific product life cycle say about ten years, especially for patented products.

Could the core idea of building a mega pharmaceutical brand be substantially different, in future?
I reckon, yes. Instead of investing huge sums in building pharmaceutical product brands with very limited product life cycle (for patented products), a more dynamic, powerful and cost efficient brand building process could well entail focusing on the ‘Corporate franchise’ brands with a mix of both patented and generic products in different price bands for different customer segments within a specific therapy category or disease area.

So instead of consistently creating, building and watching the mega patented pharmaceutical brands grow, mature and die, pharmaceutical companies could well encash the real opportunity to build long term emotional equity into their brands, hopefully without the suffocating NPPA restrictions associated with the current product brands.

Who knows, tomorrow’s list of the world’s top mega brands will not be dominated by the likes of Lipitor, Nexium, Plavix or Advair, but perhaps by quite a different types of mega brands like for example, GSK Vaccines, Sanofi-aventis Endocrinology, Novo-Nordisk Diabetic Care, Abbott Nutrition or Pfizer Cardiac Care.

Serum Institute Vaccines could be considered as one such brand for vaccines as a category, created within the pharmaceutical arena in India, over a long period of time.

Conclusion:
It is indeed quite clear now that the pharmaceutical business models are undergoing a serious re-evaluation in the new paradigm. I get a sense that the change is inevitable due to a variety of trends that are squeezing both sales and margins, posing severe challenges towards R&D, product development, marketing and communications.

As I have deliberated, some kind of solutions are gradually emerging. However, the key questions of how profound will this change be and how well the pharmaceutical companies are prepared to counter these changes, still remain unanswered.

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.

‘Prevention is better than cure’: Such a healthcare policy focus could effectively reduce the disease burden in India

Posted on by
Reply
First National Health Policy was passed by the Parliament of India in 1983 and was last updated in 2002. How much of the policy intent has seen the light of the day is anybody’s guess.
Healthcare issues are not being effectively addressed:
Even after six decades of independence only one in three Indians has access to basic sanitation facility like toilets, exposing a large number of population to various types of ailments. World Health Organization (WHO) reports that around 9 lakh Indians die every year breathing polluted air and drinking contaminated water. Maternal mortality rate is the highest in India. Almost half of the children in our country are grossly underweight and this phenomenon is growing at a rate which is nearly double the rate of even Sub-Saharan Africa. One third of the world’s tuberculosis patients live in India. It is indeed an irony that even today India belongs to one of those four countries of the world where polio has not been successfully eradicated, as yet.

Increasing incidences of chronic ailments are exerting further pressure on the disease burden:

Along with diseases originating due to poor hygienic conditions and life style, new challenges are coming up with rapid emergence of non-infectious chronic diseases like, diabetic, cardiovascular and psychosomatic disorders.

Chronic diseases could soon become the most critical issue in the Indian healthcare system, if these are not prevented and successfully managed. It has been reported that population suffering from, for example, diabetes could generate health care costs which are almost double of those without this ailment.

All these factors together are leading to an abnormally high disease burden in the country where very unfortunately over 65% of the population are not having access to modern medicines, either due to lack of infrastructural facilities or the people just cannot afford the basic costs of healthcare.

Most of the diseases are preventable:

Many of these chronic ailments ascribe to common preventable risk factors. Poor hygienic conditions, unhealthy nutrition, lack of proper physical activity, alcohol and tobacco abuse are the major risk factors for these diseases. An integrated approach towards disease prevention, though challenging for the nation, is the need of the hour. It is a pity that our healthcare systems do not support this process. India as a whole carries an abysmally poor track record for a well thought out and structured healthcare promotion and disease prevention policies and strategies.

Indian healthcare system is highly skewed towards disease treatment rather than disease prevention:

Current healthcare systems of India, which offer access to modern medicines just to 35% of the population, are aimed mostly towards responding to urgent needs of patients.

Relieving symptoms of the disease with an expectation of curing the ailment are the basic pattern of healthcare in our country, wherever it is available and in whatever scales and proportion. Preventive health care is quite different from the above approach.

Australia has shown a way:

Australian National Health and Hospitals Reforms Commission report titled, “A healthier future for all Australians”, published in July 2009 recommends the establishment of an independent National Health Promotion and Prevention Agency, with a significant budget for creating a robust evidence base to find out what exactly works in prevention of a disease. Like for example , the report highlights “comparison of the relative efficacy of a medical intervention (gastric bypass), a pharmaceutical intervention (an anti-obesity drug), an allied health intervention (an exercise and diet program) and a population health intervention ( a community walking program) in reducing obesity.”

The report clearly articulates that just collecting evidence on prevention will not be enough; disease prevention should be put on the same footing as the treatment of the disease.

Are we listening?

The way forward in India:

As many diseases are preventable, every interaction with a healthcare professional should include advice and follow-up on the preventive measures. When with an integrated and systematic approach, patients will be provided with information and practices to reduce health risks, it is quite likely that they will then try to maintain a healthy and hygienic life style with regular exercise, drinking safe water, eating healthy food which they can afford, practicing safe sex, avoiding tobacco and alcohol abuse.

Such integrated and systematic preventive healthcare measures can significantly help reducing the disease burden of individuals and families, besides improving vastly the quality of life. To promote prevention in healthcare, the very basic requirement is the change in mindset of both the policy makers and the civil society. A collaborative or partnership approach involving all concerned to create mass awareness is absolutely essential to ensure commitment of the common man towards such an important healthcare initiative.

Important areas for action:

• Effective use of persuasive communication tools to establish that preventive health care can help avoiding expensive disease burden and improve quality of life

• Mass awareness and demonstration program to help creating a positive attitude and required skill sets in disease prevention activities within the community

• Motivate healthcare professionals to make prevention an integral part of every interaction with the patients

• Medical insurance and healthcare policies to offer adequate incentives for preventive healthcare through innovative means

What the government of India is doing towards preventive healthcare:

The Planning Commission of India reports as follows:

• Health education for primary and secondary prevention of Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) through mobilization of community action

• Development of treatment protocols for education and training of physicians in the prevention and management of NCDs

• Research support for: Multi-sectoral population-based interventions to reduce risk factors

• Explanation of the role of nutrition and lifestyle-related factors

• The development of cost effective interventions at each level of care.

All these are very appreciable statements of intent. However, how much of these intents are getting translated into reality will be very difficult fathom by the common mortals.

Conclusions:

Most of the serious types of ailments of a vast majority of the population of India can be prevented and the disease related complications can be effectively avoided, if we all have a will to do that. Can we take a leaf out of the formation of “National Health Promotion and Prevention Agency” in Australia?

Healthcare costs of the nation and utilization of its scarce resource can be successfully optimized by properly focusing on disease prevention related activities. In my view, effective measures towards preventive healthcare can quite efficiently address many pressing healthcare issues of the nation.

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.

Ensuring ‘health outcomes’ based drugs prescriptions will be more beneficial for the patients in India than just ‘price control’ of drugs

Posted on by
Reply
Currently the global pharmaceutical market is undergoing a metamorphosis. The concept of ‘evidence-based medicine’ is gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, making the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcomes’ data using similar or equivalent products. Cost of incremental value that a product will deliver is of key significance. Some independent organizations like, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)in the UK have taken a leading role in this matter.Global pharmaceutical companies using more ‘health outcomes’ data to set pricing strategies:In early 2009, reported agreements between Sanofi-Aventis, Procter & Gamble and Health Alliance as well as Merck and Cigna vindicate this point. These agreements signify a major shift in the global pharmaceutical industry’s approach to gathering and using ‘health outcomes’ data

In the Sanofi-Aventis/Procter & Gamble-Health Alliance agreement, the concerned companies agreed to reimburse health insurance companies expenses incurred for patients suffering from non-spinal bone fracture while undergoing treatment with their drug Actonel.

In the Merck/Cigna agreement, Cigna will have the flexibility to price two diabetes drugs based on ‘health outcomes’ data.

‘Outcomes-based’ pricing strategies are expected to become the order of the day, in not too distant future, all over the world.

The ground realities in India:

Medicines constitute a significant cost component of modern healthcare systems, across the world. In India, overall healthcare system is fundamentally different from many other countries, even China. In most of those countries around 80% of expenses towards healthcare including medicines are reimbursed either by the Governments or through health insurance or similar mechanisms. However, in India situation is just the reverse, about 80% of overall healthcare costs including medicines are private or out of pocket expenses incurred by the individuals/families.

Since 1970, the Government of India (GoI) has been adopting various regulatory measures like cost based price control and price monitoring to make medicines affordable to the common man. For those products, which are patented in India, it has now been reported that GoI is mulling the approach of price negotiation with the respective companies.

However, we should keep in mind that making drugs just affordable in India, where about 65% of population does not have access to modern medicines, is indeed not a core determinant of either healthcare value or proven health outcomes or both.

Cost-effective ‘health outcomes’ based doctors’ prescriptions are more important:

Spending on medicines can be considered as an investment made by the patients to improve their health. To maximize benefits from such spending will require avoidance of products, which will not be effective and the use of lowest cost option with comparable ‘health outcomes’.

For this reason many countries have started engaging the regulatory authorities to come out with head to head clinical comparison of similar or equivalent drugs keeping ultimate ‘health outcomes’ of patients in mind. A day may come in India when the regulatory authorities will also concentrate on ‘outcomes-based’ pricing. However, in Indian context these appear to be very early days.

Till then…

1. Get Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG) prepared for the diseases more prevalent in India, based on, among other data, ‘health outcomes’ studies.

2. Put the STG in place for all government establishments and private hospitals to start with.

3. Gradually extend STG in private medical practices.

4. Make implementation of STG a regulatory requirement.

Thus we need to discuss first what these STGs are.

Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG):

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 (paediatric 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 a developing country like India formulation of STGs will ensure cost-effective healthcare benefits to a vast majority of population.

In India STGs have already been developed for some diseases by the experts in those areas. These are based on review of current published scientific evidence towards acceptable way forward in diagnosis, management and prevention of various disease conditions

STGs, therefore will provide:

- Standardized guidance to practitioners.
- Cost-effective ‘health outcomes’ based services.

GoI should encourage the medical professionals/institutions to lay more emphasis and refer to such ‘heath-outcomes’ based evidences while prescribing medicines. This will ensure more cost effective ‘health outcomes’ for their patients.

Conclusions:

Such an approach for drug usage will help both the doctors and the patients, significantly, to contain the cost of treatment in general and the cost of medicines in particular. Encouraging and implementing ‘health outcomes’ based medicines prescription in India will require, above all, a change in the mindset of all concerned. The use of an expensive drug with no significant improvement in ‘health outcomes’ should be avoided by the prescribers, initially through self regulation and if required through an appropriate regulation.

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.

Are pharmaceuticals related more to chemicals than health?

Posted on by
Reply

I received a call from Professor Sam Gupta yesterday.

(please refer to my article at: http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/the-professor-counterfeit)

He is returning to the US next week. Before that, he felt, it will be nice if he and I can manage some time to have a leisurely chat on various issues related to the pharmaceutical industry in India.

Sam had time, so did I on the following Sunday. We agreed to meet and discuss the subject while going for a long drive through the ‘Western Ghats’, leaving Mumbai early morning.

On the ‘D day’, I took the wheel. We fastened our seat belts and soon were on the highway. While leaving behind ‘aamchi Mumbai’ and taking the first ‘ghat road’, our Sam deviated from his usual humorous chat on America’s ‘Uncle Sam’ and fired his first salvo, “the Government of India (GoI) just created a new department called the ‘Department of Pharmaceuticals’, presumably to have greater focus on the pharmaceutical Industry. Why is that the department has still been kept under the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers and not under the Ministry of Health?” Taking a short breather, professor quipped, ‘does GoI consider pharmaceuticals related more to chemicals rather than health?’

What a first salvo!…indeed thought-provoking, at least to me. I soon lost myself to the question, diving deep into my memory lane, at the same time keeping both my right and left brain active to ponder over this interesting subject. Professor’s inquisitive chat gradually faded away from my ears…

Creation of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP):

I had a quick recap on this subject.

In mid 2008, GoI had set up a new department under the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilisers (MC&F), called the ‘Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP)’. The department was created primarily to have a greater focus on the pharmaceutical sector.

Historically, issues and policies related to pharmaceuticals used to be handled by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals. A separate Department of Fertilisers still handles all issues related to fertilizers in India. Both the departments were within the MC&F.

The then Minister of MC&F probably felt that the pharmaceuticals sector has very complex issues, besides others, related to pricing, access and availability, IPR, and other international commitments that necessitate integration of work with other ministries. A separate department for pharmaceuticals was, therefore, necessary to do justice to the pharmaceuticals industry of India. The proposal, I reckon, was there for quite some time though.

Which Ministries the DoP will have to co-ordinate with…the most?

As stated above let us have a look at the key areas of focus of the DoP, one by one and try to ascertain which Ministry currently deals with each one of these issues, as follows:

1. Pricing:

Currently DoP looks after ‘drugs pricing’ under the MC&F. This activity will remain unchanged in the new scenario.

2. ‘Access’ and ‘Availability’:

Availability of pharmaceuticals is intimately linked to access to pharmaceuticals… and access to pharmaceuticals to a vast majority of population of India depends on availability of requisite healthcare infrastructure. ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP will be more meaningful in terms of its purpose and objectives, when adequate health related infrastructural facilities will be made available, in tandem, to the common man as a part of integrated healthcare initiative. Ministry of Health is responsible to create such healthcare related infrastructure.

3. IPR:

To give some examples, for the researched-based pharmaceutical companies, there are some burning pharmaceuticals related Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues, pending since long, like ‘Patent Linkage’ and ‘Regulatory Data Protection’ along with pharmaceuticals related other regulatory issues. All these are again currently looked after by the Ministry of Health.

4. International commitments:

International debate on ‘Counterfeit drugs’, ‘clinical trials’ etc is now spearheaded by the Ministry of Health.

Thus the objective of GoI to have greater focus on pharmaceuticals will be better achieved, if the DoP becomes a part of the Ministry of Health.

What should be the key objectives of the DoP?

The key objective of the DoP should be to “ensure access to affordable modern medicines to all”. To achieve this objective the mindset of the ministers and especially beaurocrats, should change from ‘empire building’ to serving the ‘common man’ with right earnest. With this change in the mindset, I hope that the DoP would try to align itself more with health than just chemicals.

If this happens, the newly created DoP will be able to deliver far more to the ‘common man’ and justify its creation and existence by spending huge amount of taxpayers’ money.

Yes Professor… you have a point:

A steep climb ahead on the ‘ghat’, compelled me to focus on driving. Meanwhile, noticing a long pause at my end, probably professor Gupta thought initially that I was inattentive to his first question… and like a thorough gentleman that he is, remained quiet. Time passed by, in pregnant silence, till I replied, “Yes professor you have a point” and then continued driving through the meandering ‘ghat’ road, in the sweltering heat of summer…still pondering why on earth our politicians still relate pharmaceuticals more to chemicals rather than health?

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.