Tag Archives: the

R&D and Protection of IPR related to Pharma sector, are now the responsibilities of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – a quick look at the initiatives taken by the department.

Posted on by
Reply
On July 2, 2008, the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India notified creation of a new department to be known as the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers with an objective to have a sharper focus on the Pharmaceuticals Industry of India. In that notification besides other important areas, Research and Development (R&D) and protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) related to the Pharmaceutical sector, were brought under the newly created department.In this discussion let us try to have a look at the progress in both the R&D and IPRareas, separately.After creation of the new department, the Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, announced a proposed allocation of Rs. 10,000 crores (around US$ 2 billion), together with necessary regulatory reforms, towards annual Pharmaceutical R&D funding by the DoP.

The Government expects that such initiatives will help bringing in transformation of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry from brilliant and highly successful ‘imitators’ to world class ‘innovators’ of path breaking medicines. Discovery of such medicines in India is also expected to help the Government significantly, to improve access to affordable innovative modern medicines to the common man of the country. All these are no doubt, very laudable initiatives by the DoP, with a very capable, effective and a ‘can do’ leader at its helm.

The DoP plans to bring in significant changes in the clinical trial facilities available within the country. Currently even very basic clinical trials on ‘dogs’ cannot be undertaken because of protests from the activists related to ‘prevention of cruelty on animals’. Such reform measures, I am sure, will be sincerely welcomed by many.

It is interesting to note that the DoP is also planning to extend Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) to innovators. It has been reported that the invaluable data generated by the innovators towards development of the New Molecular Entity (NME) will, in near future, be protected from ‘piracy’ during 20 year patent life of the product. However, the DoP cautions that attempt to ‘evergreen patent’ through data protection, beyond the patent life of a product will not be permitted.

The argument of the innovators on this issue is that Product Patent and Clinical Data are two different types of intellectual properties and should not be considered as one and the same. While patent protection is extended for discovery of the molecule, data protection is for the immense and expensive clinical data that the innovators share with the Government for regulatory approval of the patented molecule, within the country. The argument that such valuable data generated by the innovators is an intellectual property (IP), lies in the premise that if the innovator would not have been required to part with the data with the regulatory authorities, such data would have been regarded as a ‘trade secret’, which is an IP. Therefore, the innovators argue that for sharing this IP with the Government, specific period of data protection to be extended to them, which should be unrelated to the life of the patent.

Thus far, we see that DoP has taken some very important and admirable initiatives to encourage R&D within the country. However, while looking at another important area of its responsibility i.e. protection of IPR within the Pharmaceutical sector, nothing has been announced by the department, as yet.

Encouraging R&D without effective protection of IPR, points towards an incomplete agenda to effectively address pharmaceutical product innovation related issues by the department. I sincerely hope that the DoP will soon announce its policy initiatives towards IPR protection to further encourage the innovators, both within and outside the country.

The DoP has taken some significant steps to address various important issues of the pharmaceutical industry under its terms of reference, within a very short period. I look forward to knowing from the DoP the detail initiatives in each of its nine functions and responsibilities, as announced in the notification of the cabinet secretariat on July 2, 2008.

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.

The heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

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.

We need to encourage the new product patent regime

Posted on by
Reply
Ushering in the Product Patent Regime in India heralds the dawn of a new era. The era that vindicates not only the need to encourage, protect and reward innovation for the rapid progress of our nation but also to compete effectively, in the knowledge economy with the best in the world to establish India as a leading country with a significant share of the global economy.However, it is quite unfortunate that the patents that protect today’s innovations and drive research and development to create tomorrow’s life-saving treatments are under criticism from some quarters.India chose to follow an alternative to Product Patent regime for many years. In 1970, the Government of India amended its IP laws with a clear objective in mind to reduce the prices of medicines to improve their access to the ailing population of the country.

As a result, some drugs were made cheaper. However, the moot question that we need to address now: was it a panacea? While looking back, it does not really appear so. On the contrary, the situation remained as gloomy thereafter, so far as the access of medicines is concerned. After almost 4 decades of continuation with the above policy, around 65% of Indian population still do not have access to cheaper off-patent medicines against comparative figures of 47% in Africa and 15% in China (Source: International Policy Network, November 2004).

Children still go without routine vaccinations, though the Government has made the primary vaccination programs free in our country, for all. Even in a situation like this, where affordability is no issue, only about 44% of infants (12 – 23 months) are fully vaccinated against six major childhood diseases – tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio and measles.

Moreover, as we know, despite distribution of cheaper generic HIV-AIDS drugs by the Government and others mostly free for years, only 5% of India’s AIDS patients were receiving any drugs by the end of 2006.

The above two important examples prove the point very clearly that, addressing the issue of price alone will not help our country to solve the issue of poor access of medicine to the ailing population of India. Only a sharp focus on rejuvenation of our fragile healthcare system, healthcare financing and rapid development of healthcare infrastructure of the country by the Government or through Public Private Partnership (PPP), will help address this pressing issue.

Indian Patent Act 2005 has paved the way for innovation and hi-tech research and development within the country. Contrary to adverse forecasts from some quarters, prices of medicines have not gone up.

However, while medicines play a relatively small role in rising overall health care spending including hospitalization, it is important to ensure that individuals with large healthcare expenses have affordable access to their medicines. Thus a good affordable insurance coverage (both Government and Private) available to all Indians belonging to various socio-economic strata, together with the above measures, will help address the key issues of both access and affordability of medicines for all, in a holistic way.

The attack on patents is not really a defense of patients or the poor. Such attacks help diverting attention from the core healthcare issues, as mentioned above, which are healthcare system, healthcare financing and healthcare infrastructure. Health of our nation will depend on how well these key issues are being addressed by the policy and decision makers. Our country cannot afford to ignore that Intellectual Property is one of the keys to prosperity of a great nation like India and it should be encouraged, protected and rewarded under a robust Patent Act of the country for inclusive growth.

By Tapan Ray

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

An integrated approach towards Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives to improve access to healthcare in India is the way forward.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite so much of stringent government control, debate and activism on the affordability of modern medicines in India, on the one hand, and the success of the government to make medicines available in the country at a price, which is cheaper than even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, on the other, the fact still remains, about 65% of Indian population do not have access to affordable modern medicines, compared to 15% in China and 22% in Africa.The moot question therefore is, despite all these stringent price regulation measures by the government and prolonged public debates over nearly four decades or so to ensure better ‘affordability of medicines’, why then the situation on ‘access to modern medicines’has remained so abysmal to a vast majority of the population, in India?This, in my view, is mainly because; no single minister or ministry can now be held accountable by the civil society for such a dismal performance in the access to healthcare, in India.

Poor healthcare infrastructure:

As per the Government’s own estimate, India records:

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

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

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

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

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

Some good but sporadic public healthcare initiatives:

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

Addressing the issue of improving access to healthcare:

While addressing the issue of improving access of healthcare, following three important ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ initiatives would be most appropriate.

1. PPP to improve affordability:

To address this vexing problem, industry associations had jointly suggested a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model to the government in 2006-07, instead of a stringent price control mechanism, which has not worked thus far to improve access of modern medicines, in India. Instead, the associations seemed to have suggested that the pharmaceutical industry will supply to the government the essential medicines at 50% of their Maximum Retail Price (MRP), to cater to the need of below the poverty line (BPL) families.

It is worth mentioning, many OPPI member companies like, Novartis, GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis etc. have their own access to medicines programs in India.

Although the government did not respond to this proposal, to make it effective the ministry of health will require to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercises, both in the primary and also in the secondary public healthcare facilities in the country. FICCI is reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds, for such capacity building exercises .

Frugal budget allocation by the government towards healthcare of the country, suggests that Government is gradually shifting its role in this very important area, primarily from healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to develop it further. If it is so, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure, leave aside other incentives, impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. Effective PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, without further delay.

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

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

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

3. PPP in healthcare financing for all:

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

Out of a population of 1.3 billion in China, 250 million are covered by insurance; another 250 million are partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance. Converse to this scenario, in India total number of population who may have some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million with penetration of health insurance at just around 3.5% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China mainly due to better response to healthcare infrastructure.

Even after leveraging IT for ‘Telemedicine’ and improving healthcare delivery processes, together with availability of low priced quality medicines from ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, a robust healthcare financing model for all strata of society to make healthcare products/services affordable to a vast majority of the population, will remain an essential requirement for the country to address the issue of improving access to healthcare to all.

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

Conclusion:

In my view an integrated approach for creating effective healthcare infrastructure throughout the country, leveraging IT in the entire healthcare space, appropriately structured ‘Health Insurance’ schemes for all strata of society ably supported by well spread out ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets even in far flung rural areas, deserve careful consideration by the Government.

A PPP model in all these three areas needs to be worked out in detail to address the pressing issue of improving ‘Access to Affordable Integrated Healthcare to ALL’.

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.