Tag Archives: the

FDI in ‘Brownfield’ Pharma acquisitions and the growth of ‘Greenfield’ projects in India

Posted on by
Reply

Just when global multinational companies are inking deals to get more and more drugs manufactured in India, because of various financial and other considerations, giving a fillip to the domestic manufacturing capacity, recent media reports are carrying news items expressing apprehensions on possible declining trend of pharmaceutical manufacturing activities in the country due to ‘brownfield’ acquisitions of the domestic pharmaceutical companies by large multinationals.

Almost around this time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics data (USA) of May 2010 reported that the number of employees engaged in “pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing” in the US went down by 5% from what it was about two years ago with around 35000 layoffs in the first half of 2010.

According to ‘New York Times’, there has been around 15,000 manufacturing job loss in Europe around this period.

Where the global manufacturing capacity has started shifting then?

As compared to above, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India, as reported by Fierce Pharma, have indicated that pharmaceutical manufacturing industry of the country employed 340,000 people during April 2008 to March 2009 period with a sizable increase in number compared to the previous period. Overall, the industry provides employment to over 4.2 million persons directly or indirectly in India (Source: IDMA). This is happening despite a series of large to medium brownfield acquisitions in the country.

Moreover, a study by the Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India and Ernst & Young, based on 50 survey respondents from 30 pharmaceutical companies in the US, Europe and Asia, projects growth of formulations manufacturing and intermediate drugs in India at a rate of 43%, which is three times more than the projected global rate.

Growth in manufacturing through global collaborations:

With a large number of the world class manufacturing facilities conforming to cGMP requirements of various regulatory authorities across the globe, India is fast emerging as a global hub for pharmaceutical manufacturing services.

Emerging pharmaceutical manufacturing environment in the country, no doubt, is attracting a large number of global pharma majors to ink contract manufacturing deals, as mentioned above, with their Indian counterparts. Such collaborative arrangements with global partners are giving a further thrust to the pharmaceutical manufacturing activities of the country. To cater to the growing demand in manufacturing, some domestic companies are setting up ‘greenfield’ projects, while others are getting engaged in major expansion of their existing manufacturing facilities.

As per Frost & Sullivan, contract manufacturing market in India registered a turnover of around US$ 2.3 billion with a CAGR of 33% on 2010. RNCOS, an Industry Research solution company estimates that this sector will grow at a CAGR of over 45% during 2011-2013, in India.

Large global pharma companies like, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Merck, GSK and Pfizer have already inked collaborative arrangements with Indian Pharmaceutical companies related to manufacturing.

Eisai Co. Ltd of Japan inaugurated its second largest active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) production facility (after their Kashima plant in Japan) at Visakhapatnam on December 2009. The company is also to start a Research & Development (R&D) center for formulation development around the same place starting with four to five projects.

In the recent past the following predominantly manufacturing collaborative agreements have been signed by the MNCs in India:

Collaborative Deals

Year

 Multinational Companies Indian Companies

2009

 GSK Dr. Reddy’s Lab
Pfizer Aurobindo Pharma

2010

 AstraZeneca Torrent
Abbott Cadila Healthcare
Pfizer Strides Arcolab
AstraZeneca Aurobindo Pharma
Pfizer Biocon

2011

 Bayer Cadila Healthcare
MSD Sun Pharma

 

This is happening mainly because of inherent cost arbitrage, other factors being the same:

Comparison of Cost Advantage in India (%)
Costs in the Western Countries 100.0
Production Costs 50.0
R&D Costs 12.5
Clinical Trials Costs 10.0
Source: Pharmexcil Research

ANDAs and DMFs are manufacturing growth boosters:

Large portfolios of ANDAs and DMFs of domestic pharmaceutical players will also spur manufacturing in India:

ANDA approval by country:

Final ANDA Approvals by Country  (2007) (figs. in Nos.)

Country

Numbers
USA 169
India 132
Israel 40
Germany 25
Canada 24
Switzerland 19
Iceland 14
Jordan 11
Other 25
Source: Thomson Scientific

 

DMF approval by country:

Comparison of Drug Master Filings (Type II) by India, China & World (1998-2007) (Figs. in Nos.)

Year

India

China

World Total

1998

 32 27 316

1999

 26 6 199

2000

 33 9 201

2001

 47 6 238

2002

 55 20 264

2003

 115 19 360

2004

 160 25 435

2005

 233 70 615

2006

 267 78 627

2007

 274 90 656
Source: Thomson Scientific,

Patent challenge to boost manufacturing for exports:

To further boost manufacturing, especially for exports, Indian pharmaceutical players have also started challenging global patents. In fact in patent challenge, India ranks just next to USA with a share of 21% of the total:

Country-wise Number of Patent Challenges (As on March 2008)

Country

Numbers
USA 200
India 113
Israel 89
Canada 43
Switzerland 34
Iceland 17
Germany 10
Other 32
Source: Thomson Scientific,

Boosting up domestic manufacturing with overseas acquisitions and collaborations:

At the same time, domestic Indian companies are also on a spree of overseas acquisition and collaborative deals. The following details from the Ministry of Commerce are a testimony to this fact:

Selected International Acquisitions and Foreign tie-ins by the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Company

International Acquisition (s)

Foreign Alliances, JVS, and other tie-ins
Nicholas Piramal Pfizer-Morpeth (UK), Avecia Pharmaceutical (UK), Dobutrex brand acquisition (US), Rhodia’s inhalation business (UK), Biosyntech (NPIL Pharmaceutical) (Canada), Torcan Chemical (Canada), 51 percent of Boots (S. Africa), Biosyntech Ethypharm (France), Genzyme (US), Eli Lilly (US), Biogen Idec (US), Chiese Farmaceutici (Italy), Minrad (US), Pierre Fabre (France), Gilead Sciences (US), Allergan (US), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland)
Ranbaxy Terapia (Romania), Allen-GSK (Spain & Italy), Ethimed (Belgium), Betapharm (Germany), RPG Aventis (France), 40 percent stake in Nihom Pharmaceuticals (Japan), Brand-Veratide (Germany), Efarmes (Spain), Be-Tabs (S. Africa), Akrikhin (Russia), Basic (Germany), Ohm Labs (US) GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Janssen-Ortho (Canada), IPCA Labs (US), Zenotech (India), Sonkel (S. Africa), Cephalon (US), Gilead Sciences (US), Schwartz (Germany)
Dr. Reddy’s Betapharm Group (Germany), Trigenesis (US), BMS Laboratories and Meridian Healthcare (UK), Roche’s active ingredients business (Mexico), BMS Labs (UK) Novo Nordisk, Bayer AG (Germany), Par (US), Novartis (Switzerland), Merck (Germany), Clin Tech, Pharmascience (Canada), ICICI (India), Merck (Germany), Schwartz
Marksans Nova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) NA
Aurobindo Milpharm (UK), Pharmacin (Netherlands) Gilead Science (US), Citadel (India)
Sun Pharmaceutical Able Lab (US), Caraco (US), Valeant Pharmaceuticals (US & Hungary), ICN (Hungary), Caraco (US), MJ Pharmaceutical Dyax
Dishman Amcis (Switzerland), Solutia’s Pharma (Switzerland) Azzurro (Japan)
Orchid Bexel Pharma (US) Stada, Alpharma, Par, Apotex
Biocon Nobex (US) Centre of Molecular Immunology (Cuba)
Wockhardt Wallis Labs (UK), CP Pharmaceutical (UK), Esparma (Germany), Pinewood Laboratories (Ireland), Dumex (India) Pharmaceutical dynamics (S. Africa)
Cadila Alpharma (France-formulations), Dabur Pharma Redrock (UK) Schering (Germany), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany), Vitaris (Germany), Novopharm (Canada), MCPC (Saudi Arabia), Cilpharm (Ivory Coast), Geneva (US), GSK (UK), Ranbaxy (India), Mallinckrodt (US), Mayne (Australia), Shinjuki (Japan), Zydus Atlanta
Jubliant Organosys Target Research Association (US), PSI (Belgium), Trinity Laboratories (US) NA
Matrix Labs 22 percent controlling stake in Docpharma (Belgium), Explora Lab (Switzerland), MCHEM (China), Fine Chemicals (S. Africa), API (Belgium) Aspen, Emchem, Docpharma, Explora Labs
Glenmark Kinger Lab (Brazil), Uno-Ciclo (Brazil), Srvycal (Argentina), Medicamenta (Czech), Bouwer Bartlett Forest Labs (US), Lehigh Valley Technologies (US), Shasun (India), KV, Apotex (US)
Source: Source: Ministry of commerce, Government of India .(IBEF, Ernst & Young, The Economic Times, Individual company web pages)

Conclusion:

M&A is a natural business processes in any country with appropriate safeguards for any possible adverse effect on competition.  India has already put similar safeguards in place with the scrutiny of the Competition Commission before acquisition and continuous price monitoring by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) after the acquisition is over.

It is worth mentioning, just on September 16, 2011, the Competition Commission of India, after stringent scrutiny on the impact of competition, cleared the proposal of Danone Asia Pacific to acquire the nutrition business of Wockhardt Ltd.

In the wake of all these, the apprehension that the ‘brownfield’ pharmaceutical acquisitions will retard the growth of ’greenfield’ pharmaceutical projects or have adverse impact on competition in the country, does not seem to hold much water. To a great extent FDI in ‘brownfield’ pharmaceutical acquisitions and the growth of ‘greenfield’ pharmaceutical projects in India, are unrelated.

Be that as it may, India should perhaps not expect that the country will continue to remain one of the pharmaceutical manufacturing hotspots for any indefinite period mainly because of cost arbitrage, which, in any case is not sustainable over a long period of time by any country.

As we have seen above, with the emergence of Asia, USA and EU are gradually but surely losing their pharmaceuticals manufacturing hubs’ status to China (API) and India (formulations). Who knows, some time in future, with the awakening of sleeping Africa, Asia will also not have the same fate?

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.

Biosimilar Drugs: The Roadblocks and the Road Ahead

Posted on by
Reply

Unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ chemical based drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologic drugs are developed from living cells and using very complex processes. These groups of drugs could range from simpler insulin to therapy for treating complex ailments like, cancer and almost invariably attract a high price tag, which could run even in thousands of dollars.

It is virtually impossible to replicate these protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. One can at best develop a biologically similar molecule with the application of high degree of biotechnological expertise. These drugs are usually much less expensive than the original ones and called ‘Biosimilar Drugs’. It is expected that ‘biosimilar drugs’ will have lesser market competition than the conventional ‘small molecule’ generic drugs, mainly because of complexity and costs involved in their developmental process.

Future growth potential:

In most of the developed countries, besides regulatory issues, ‘Biosimilar drugs’ are considered to be a threat to the fast growing global biotech industry. At the same time, it is widely believed that in the rapidly evolving global concern for cheaper and more affordable medicines for patients across the world, relatively smaller biotech companies, given the required wherewithal  at their disposal, could emerge as winners in this new ball game as compared to traditional generic pharmaceutical players.

Novartis (Sandoz) – first to launch a ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the US:

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘Biosimilar drug’- Omnitrope of Sandoz (Novartis) following a court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone, Genotropin. Interestingly, Sandoz had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for some time in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA. The CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”. Despite this event, none at that time expected the US FDA to put regulatory guidelines in place for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the country.

Merck’s entry was through an acquisition:

Merck announced its entry into the ‘Biosimilar drugs’ business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million in cash. Rich pipeline of follow-on biologics of Insmed is expected to help Merck to hasten its entry into global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ markets.

Other recent global initiatives:

  • Merck paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.
  • Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) has already been marketing a biosimilar version of Rituxan of Roche since 2007.
  • According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Novartis (Sandoz), Teva and Pfizer are expected to be strong players in the biosimilar market.
  • Reliance Life Science though has faced a setback in Europe with the regulators asking for more data for its copy of EPO prompting them to withdraw their application for now, is also a potential player in the biosimilar market.

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

Current status in the US:

President Barak Obama administration of the US has been expressing for quite some time a strong intent to pave the way for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the US. To facilitate this process, a new draft legislation titled, “Promoting Innovation and Access to Life Saving Medicine Act” was introduced by the legislators of the country. This legislation came into force with the announcement by US-FDA the outline of how biopharmaceutical players can submit their application for marketing approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the country. Many industry players have since then been gearing up, across the world, to have a share of the potentially large ‘biosimilar drugs’ market in the US.

Challenging clinical data requirements in the US:

According to ‘Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act)’, which was enacted in the US on March 23, 2010, any biological substance to be “biosimilar” will require to be “highly similar to the reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components”. BPCI also specifies that there should be “no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product”. It is interesting to note that the Act emphasizes on ‘clinical similarity’ rather than ‘biological or structural similarity’ between the original and ‘biosimilar drugs’.

The New England Journal of Medicine dated August 4, 2011 reported that US-FDA is in the process of establishing very challenging clinical requirements from the makers of ‘biosimilar drugs’ for obtaining marketing approval in the country. Such stringent regulatory requirements are expected to push up the cost of development of ‘biosimilar drugs’ significantly, seriously limiting the number of players in the market.

12 years Exclusivity in the US:

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the FDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the FDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

However, the key point to note here is, if the FDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the 12 year period, the innovator companies in that case, will effectively get, at least, one more year of exclusivity over and above  the 12 years period, when the applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ will keep waiting for marketing approval from the FDA.

The market:

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

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

The Indian biotech players:

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

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

Funding by the Government of India:

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has proposed funding of US$ 68 million for ‘biosimilar drugs’ through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for the same. Currently DBT spends reportedly around US$200 million annually towards biotechnology related initiatives.

Key success factors for rapid acceptance in the developed markets:

According to a new research finding from ‘The Decision Resources’, one of the key success factors for any such new drugs is how quickly the specialists will accept them. So far as biosimilar drugs are concerned they noted a high level of concern, if such drugs are not supported by robust sets of clinical data on the claimed treatment indications.

Conclusion:

With increasing global cost-containment pressures within the healthcare space, the emergence of a lucrative global ‘biosimilar drugs’ market now appears to be inevitable.

In the fast evolving scenario, major research based global bio-pharma and even the pure pharmaceutical companies will have two clear choices. The first choice is the conventional one of competing with ‘biosimilar drugs’ in all important markets of the world. However, the second choice of jumping into the fray, keeping undiluted focus on R&D, appears to be more prudent and perhaps will also make a shrewd horse sense. Only future will tell us, which of these two business senses will prevail, in the run up to success, for the global biotech companies.

With the above background, the report from the ‘Business Wire’ highlighting the fact, ‘the manufacture and development of a biosimilar molecule requires an investment of about US$ 10 to 20 million in India, as compared to US$ 50 to 100 million in developed countries’, vindicates the emergence of another lucrative business opportunity for India.

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

Experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing  high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India. Significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) standards will offer additional advantages.

In addition to cost efficiency, available skill sets in developing ‘biosimilar drugs’, will offer another critical advantage to the domestic players in reaching out to the international ‘biosimilar drugs’ markets either by themselves or with appropriate collaborative arrangements, just as we have recently witnessed in case of Biocon’s strategic collaboration with Pfizer in this rapidly evolving sector of the world.

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.

State funded ‘Universal Healthcare’ in India: A laudable initiative of the Government

Posted on by
Reply

January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’, in the article authored by Prof. K. Srinath Reddy et al titled, “Towards achievement of universal health care in India by 2020: a call to action”, proposed creation of an Integrated National Health System in India through provision of universal health insurance, establishment of autonomous organizations to enable accountable and evidence-based good-quality health-care practices and at the same time reduce the high out-of-pocket expenditure on health care through a well regulated integration of the private sector within the national health-care system of India, by 2020.

About six months later, in its August 16, 2011 issue ‘The Times of India’ reported that the Planning Commission of India is currently framing up the blue print for a universal health insurance scheme which would provide a minimum cover to everyone in the country. It is expected that a surcharge will be levied for this Universal Health Care (UHC) initiative.

Though UHC is indeed a very commendably initiative for India as a nation,  some dubious and self-styled ‘healthcare crusaders’ have already started raising the bogey of ‘the inadequacy’ of the scheme as a diversionary measure to misguide the easily vulnerable common man of the country.

Efforts being made to sensationalize the current status of the Indian healthcare system:

Even in the backdrop of UHC initiative, the following sensational headlines could be fallacious at times, which more often than not are being misused by the vested interests:

  • “About 1.8 million children under age of 5 die in India every year; 68,000 mothers die due to maternal causes, and 52 million children in the country are stunted”.
  • “With 70% people living in more than 600,000 villages across rural India, not more than an estimated 30% have access to modern medicine”.

It is unfortunate that many key stakeholders, interested in improved healthcare system, are continuously engaged in an eternal blame game of ‘it is not my monkey’. At the same time, taking advantage of this confused situation, some other groups plan to facilitate their vested interests by projecting a ‘weaker India’ with contentious planted reports both overtly and covertly.

In this prevailing scenario, which has been continuing since the last several decades, there is no dearth of people who would attempt to hijack the health interest of the nation to harvest mega commercial benefits.

While all concerned should keep a vigil on such sinister design, let me now try to place some hard facts before you on the current healthcare scenario in India in the context of UHC.

The facts on access to ‘round the year’ healthcare facilities in India:

As reported by the Government of India in 2004, access to healthcare infrastructure and services for the rural villages in terms of percentages were as follows (Source: India Health Report 2010) :

  1. Primary Health Centers:  68.3
  2. Sub-Centers:   43.2
  3. Government Dispensaries:  67.9
  4. Government hospitals in urban areas:  79
  5. Private Clinics:  62.7
  6. Private Hospitals:  76.7

I reckon, after implementation of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and National Urban Health Mission (NRUM), this situation prevailing in 2004 has improved. However, the scope for further improvement in all these areas still remains very high. UHC could be a key facilitator.

In any case, the shrill voice highlighting around 65% of population of India does not have access to healthcare or medicines seem to be highly misplaced.

‘Access to Modern Medicines’ is improving in India, slowly but surely:

Contrary to the above propaganda, in the real life situation the access to modern medicines by the common man in the country even in the rural India is steadily increasing.

This is evidenced by the facts, CAGR (volume) of the pharmaceutical industry since the last ten years has been around 13%, leaving aside another robust growth factor being contributed through the introduction of newer brands, every year. Encouraging growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), since the last decade, both from the urban and the rural areas, certainly signals towards significant increase in the domestic consumption of medicines in India.

IPM maintained a scorching pace of 16.5% growth in 2010. A recent forecast of IMS highlights near similar growth trend in 2011, as well.

In addition, extension of focus of the Indian pharmaceutical Industry, in general, to the fast growing rural markets, which are currently growing at a much faster pace than ever before, clearly supports the argument of increasing ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even in rural India. The improvement in access may not exactly be commensurate to the volume growth of the industry during this period, but a major part of the industry growth could certainly be attributed towards increase in access to modern medicines in India.

For arguments sake, out of this rapid growth of the IPM, year after year consistently, if I attribute just 5% growth per year, for even the last nine years over the base year of 1998 (as reported in 2004 by WHO) to improved access to medicines, it will indicate, at least, 57% of the population of India currently has access to modern medicines and NOT just 35%, as I wrote in my blog earlier, quoting the numbers from the above WHO report of 2004.

Unfortunately, even the Government of India does not seem to be aware of this gradually improving trend. Official communications of the government still quote the outdated statistics, which states that 65% of the population of India does not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even today. No wonder, why many of us still prefer to live on to our past.

Be that as it may, around 43% of the population will perhaps still not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India. This issue needs immediate attention of the policy makers and can be resolved with a holistic approach. UHC initiative together with improvement of healthcare infrastructure and delivery systems are the needs of the hour.

So called ‘Diseases of the Poor’ are no longer the ‘Leading Causes of Death’ in India:

As stated above, the disproportionate diversionary focus on the diseases of the poor by the vested interests, being the leading causes of death in India, should be re-validated with the data available with the office of the Registrar General of India (2009). This report highlights a totally different scenario, where the top five leading causes of death in terms of percentage, have been reported as follows:

  1. Cardiovascular diseases:  24.8
  2. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): 10.2
  3. Tuberculosis: 10.1
  4. Cancer: 9.4
  5. Ill-defined conditions: 5.3

Thus the diseases of the developed world, like cardiovascular diseases, COPD and Cancer cause over 45% of the total deaths in India, whereas Tuberculosis, Malaria, Diarrhea and digestive diseases cause around 23% deaths in the country. I reckon, UHC will take care of this emerging disease pattern in India.

The key reasons for not seeking medical treatment are not always poor ‘Access to Healthcare’:

While promoting the UHC, the government should take note of the key reasons for not seeking medical treatment, across socioeconomic milieu in the country. These reasons are not predominantly due to ‘Poor Access to Healthcare ‘. The following data will vindicate this point:

Reason

Rural Poorest 20%

Rural Richest 20%

Urban Poorest 20%

Urban Richest 20%
Financial Reasons

39.7

21.2

37.2

2.3
Ailments not considered serious

27.2

45.6

44.3

84.4
No Medical facilities

12.8

10.0

1.6

_
Others

20.3

23.2

16.9

13.3

Total

100

100

100

100

(Source: India Health Report 2010)

All these are happening probably because we do not have, as yet, any ‘well-structured healthcare financing system’ for all section of the society. The UHC initiative could well be a very significant part to the solution of this long standing problem together with other specific important measures, some of which I have already deliberated above.

While addressing the healthcare financing issue of India, January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’ in its article titled, “Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities” commented:

“India’s health financing system is a cause of and an exacerbating factor in the challenges of health inequity, inadequate availability and reach, unequal access, and poor-quality and costly health-care services. The Government of India has made a commitment to increase public spending on health from less than 1% to 3% of the gross domestic product during the next few years…. Enhanced public spending can be used to introduce universal medical insurance that can help to substantially reduce the burden of private out-of-pocket expenditures on health.”

I reiterate in this context, UHC initiative brings a breadth of fresh air to the prevailing rather gloomy healthcare financing scenario in India.

A comparison of private (out of pocket) health expenditure:

Look at it from, any angle, the general population of India is most burdened with high’ out of pocket healthcare expenses’ compared to even all of our neighboring countries:

1. Pakistan: 82.5% 2. India: 78% 3. China: 61% 4. Sri Lanka: 53% 5. Thailand: 31% 6. Bhutan: 29% 7. Maldives: 14%

(Source: The Lancet)

This factor itself, in case of just one or couple of serious illnesses, could make a middle class household of India poor and a poor could be pushed even Below the Poverty Line (BPL). UHC initiative of the Government is expected to change this scenario significantly in the years ahead.

The key unresolved issue of ‘affordability’ will get partially unresolved with UHC:

The above edition of ‘The Lancet’ highlighted that outpatient (non-hospitalization) expenses in India is around 74% of the total health expenses and the drugs account for 72% of this total outpatient expenditure. The study has also pointed out that 47% and 31% hospitalization in rural and urban areas respectively, are financed by loans and sell off assets.

This critical issue of ‘affordability’ of modern medicines is expected to get, at least partially resolved with the UHC scheme of the Government.

Around 32% of Indian BPL population can’t afford to spend on medicines:

While framing the UHC scheme, the government should keep in mind that a population of around 32% in India, still lives below the poverty line (BPL) and will not be able to afford any expenditure, however minor it may be, towards medicines. Proper implementation of the RSBY scheme with military precision, will be the right approach to this marginalized section of the society.

National Health Entitlement Card:

According to the Planning Commission, to enable the citizens availing the facilities provided by the ‘Universal Healthcare,’ the government will issue a ‘National Health Entitlement Card’, which will guarantee free access to  relevant healthcare packages designed for the primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare for all. This scheme will be fully funded by the Central Government and cover both inpatient and outpatient services.

Conclusion:

Thus in the current scenario, the initiative of ‘Universal healthcare’ to provide access to healthcare to all citizens of India by addressing the critical issue of high incidence of ‘out of pocket’ expenses towards health care, is indeed a laudable initiative and ushers in a breadth of fresh air, despite all motivated comments against it.

We need also to keep in mind, although the ‘Universal healthcare’ is a fascinating mega initiative by the Planning Commission of India, this may not resolve all health related maladies of the country in one stroke.

Even in the changed scenario, a large section of the population both rich and poor and from both urban as well as rural India, may continue to not seek medical treatment assuming initially many of their ailments are not serious enough. Such a situation will definitely not materially improve the healthcare scenario of India, quite adversely affecting the economic progress of the country.

Such a situation, if continues, will necessitate continuous disease awareness campaigns with active participation of all stakeholders, including the civil society across the country, sooner than later, in tandem with all other measures as may deem necessary from time to time.

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.

Restructure, reposition and empower the DoP to deliver more to the nation: Break the Silos

Posted on by
Reply

A news item on July 25, 2011 reported, “DoP (Department of Pharmaceuticals) moots National Authority for Drugs & Therapeutics (NADT) with Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) under it”.

If I recall, some years ago, a Government of India (GoI) appointed taskforce had also suggested integration of the offices of the DCGI, CDSCO and NPPA along with all their powers and functions. However, nothing has fructified, as yet, not even the Central Drug Authority (CDA) Bill, which was mooted in 2007.

In the same context while taking a pause to look back, we note that in 2008 to help accelerating the growth momentum of the pharmaceutical industry of India through a more efficient government administrative and policy machinery, the GoI created a new department called the ‘Department of Pharmaceuticals’ under the MOC&F.

It was widely expected at that time that the DoP will be able to address the following key pharmaceutical industry related issues with an integrated approach to strike a right balance between the growth fundamentals of the industry and the Public Health Interest (PHI):

  • Drug policy and pricing
  • Providing access to high quality and affordable modern medicines to all
  • A facilitating drug regulatory system
  • An appropriate ecosystem to encourage R&D and protect Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
  • Addressing the issue of high out of pocket expenses of the general population for healthcare
  • Fiscal and tax incentives required by the Micro-Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) within the pharmaceutical industry of India.

As stated above, all these will necessitate close coordination and integration of work of various departments falling under the different ministries of the government. 

The key Objectives of the DoP: 

Following are the stated key objectives of the DoP:

1 Ensure availability of quality drugs at reasonable prices as per the Pharma Policy

2 Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support

3 Develop Pharma Infrastructure and Catalyze Drug Discovery and Innovation

4 Launch and Position Pharma India Brand.

The moot questions:

Considering all these, the moot questions that could follow are as follows:

  1. Do the objectives of the DoP effectively address the need to improving access to quality and affordable medicines to the common man with an integrated approach between all concerned departments of MOC&F and MOH&FW?
  2. Is the nodal department of the pharmaceutical industry – the DoP currently placed in the right Ministry to contribute more effectively to achieve the ultimate national goal of ‘ affordable healthcare for all’ ?

Need for greater co-ordinated approach:

The issue of access to quality and affordability medicines, reaching patients in conformance to a strict regulatory framework, will need to be addressed with an integrated systems approach.

As is commonly believed, increasing access to modern medicines will depend mainly on the following key requirements:

  1. Creating an appropriate healthcare infrastructure and delivery system across the country.
  2. Making prices of medicines reasonable/affordable to a large section of the population.
  3. Reducing high (80%) ‘Out of Pocket’ healthcare expenses of the common man through a well-structured healthcare financing/health-insurance model for all strata of society.

All these measures will entail very closely working together between the DoP and the related departments of MOH&FW. This situation calls for consideration of repositioning the DoP by making it a part of MOH&FW and NOT of MOC&F.

Pharmaceutical Industry: The areas of key importance:

Be that as it may, let us now try to have a closer look at the other aspect – the key areas of importance of the pharmaceutical industry for its accelerated growth and development and try to ascertain, if DoP is made responsible for all these critical areas, which Ministry they will need to deal with, the most:

1. Drug Policy and Pricing:

Currently DoP is responsible for an inclusive growth oriented drug policy and drugs pricing (through National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, NPPA) under the MOC&F. This key activity of  the department has immense impact on the performance of the pharmaceutical industry of India.

2. ‘Access’ and ‘Availability’ of modern medicines across the country:
Availability of pharmaceutical products is intimately linked to the quality of access to pharmaceuticals by a vast majority of population of India, as indicated above, depends on availability of requisite healthcare infrastructure and the delivery systems, besides the prices of medicines.

‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme – a praiseworthy initiative of the DoP now seems to be a near disaster in terms of the project implementation.  This scheme could have been more meaningful with the support of adequate health related infrastructural facilities and in tandem with the projects like, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), National Urban Health Mission (NUHM), Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojna (RSBY) targeted to offer better healthcare to the common man with a robust and integrated healthcare delivery initiative.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOH&FW) is responsible to create such healthcare related infrastructure and delivery system.

3. Drug Regulatory System:

The drug regulatory system of the country, which is so important to the pharmaceutical industry for its rapid growth and development, is now operating at a sub-optimal level for various reasons. The dissatisfaction of the industry with this key regulator reportedly has reached its nadir.

Almost the entire Drug Regulatory System in India is being run and governed by the office of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), which comes under the MOH&FW. DCGI’s office is responsible for effective and speedy implementation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India (DCA), which includes world class and ethical clinical trial standards in the country, marketing approval of all new products including exports, implementation of Schedule M (cGMP), all pharmaceuticals site registrations and effectively addressing the issue of spurious and counterfeit drugs, just to name a few. DoP has hardly any direct or indirect control over any of these key activities falling under the purview of the MOH&FW.

4. Biopharmaceuticals:

The Department of Biotechnology under the Ministry of Science and Technology currently looks after this emerging area of pharmaceuticals sector. DoP has no direct control over these activities.

5. R&D and IPR:

R&D and IPR related issues in pharmaceuticals/biopharmaceuticals are very important areas of the pharmaceutical business in the country. Although IP Policy related areas are looked after by the Department of Industrial policy and Promotion (DIPP), some contentious and highly debated IP related issues like, Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), Patent Linkage etc. are currently within the domain of DCGI under MOH&FW. DoP has no direct role to play in these areas.

6. High out of pocket expenses for healthcare:

In India ‘Out of Pocket Expenses (OPE)’ towards healthcare is around 80%. Such high OPE, especially in case of very serious and life threatening illnesses, like cancer, cardiovascular emergencies etc. could make a middle class household poor and a poor household could even be pushed ‘Below the Poverty Line (BPL)’.

Thus high OPE is indeed a very serious issue of the country, which can only be addressed through policy initiatives by designing appropriate health insurance/healthcare financing scheme for all strata of society in India.

For a large section of the society, this issue can be addressed by MOH&FW in consultation with Ministry of Finance, just as they have come out with an innovative and praiseworthy RSBY scheme for the BPL families. DoP does not seem to have much role to play in this area, as well.

Thus the objective of GoI to have greater focus on healthcare in general and the pharmaceuticals in particular could be better achieved, if the DoP is made a part of MOH&FW by breaking the independent silos in form of the NPPA, CDSCO, DCGI etc., now operating, especially, in these two ministries.

Key issues of pharma industry versus key objectives of the DoP: From the above details, if one compares the key issues and success factors of the pharmaceutical industry of India versus the key objectives of the DoP, one will notice a dis-conformity.

If this is allowed to continue even the all-important first objective of the department, ”Ensuring availability of quality drugs at reasonable prices as per the Pharma Policy” will continue to remain an illusion. It is indeed surprising to note that this objective does not talk anything about improved access to modern medicines by the common man, either.

Over a period of over last four decades India has experienced that only through increased focus on affordability, the objective of increased access to medicines by the common man could not be achieved in India. Besides other healthcare infrastructure related factors, high OPE still remains a key barrier to access to modern medicines by the common man.

Why is  DoP trying to revive the loss making pharmaceutical Public Sector Units (PSUs)?

As stated above, the second objective of the DoP, which states, “Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support” is equally intriguing. Everyone knows that all these PSUs created by spending tax payers’ money , miserably failed to perform and deliver even when the Indian pharmaceutical industry continues to register a CAGR growth of around 15% decade after decade. It is indeed difficult to fathom, which magic wand of the DoP will be able to bring these loss making and heavily bleeding PSUs out of continuous non-performance and governance failure in an era of fierce competitive pressure within the industry, by pouring even more from the national exchequer’s fund in the bottomless pits of losses of these PSUs?

I reckon, if these PSUs still attract interest of some good private buyers/investors with reasonable valuation, the government should unhesitatingly decide to unlock these values, sooner the better.

Conclusion:

In my view, if the DoP is expected to ensure improved “access to affordable and quality modern medicines to all”, as discussed above, the department should be repositioned and made a part of MOH&FW, rather than keeping it with the MOC&F, ignoring any possible political squabbles between the two concerned ministries, even in the coalition politics of India.

Such restructuring, repositioning and empowerment of the DoP in turn, will help achieving one of the key healthcare objectives of the nation, simultaneously fostering rapid growth of the industry making it a formidable global force to reckon with, both in the innovative and generic pharmaceutical business of the world.

This expected scenario, if gets translated into reality will justify the creation and existence of the DoP at the cost of huge amount of public fund.

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.

First ever ‘Code of Pharma Marketing Practices’ by the Government: A strong signal to “Shape Up”!

Posted on by
Reply

After a protracted debate on the alleged ‘unethical marketing practices’ by the pharmaceutical companies, in May 2011, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) came out with a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCMP)’ to address this issue squarely and effectively in India.

This decision of the government is the culmination of a series of events, covered widely by the various section of the media, at least, since 2004.

Examples of public/media outcry:

Way back, in its January–March, 2004 issue, ‘Indian Journal of Medical Ethics’ (IJME) in context of marketing practices for ethical pharmaceutical products in India commented: “If the one who decides, does not pay and the one who pays, does not decide and if the one who decides is ‘paid’, will truth stand any chance?” Three year later, in 2007 the situation remained unchanged when IJME (April–June 2007 edition) once again reported: “Misleading information, incentives, unethical trade practices were identified as methods to increase the prescription and sales of drugs. Medical Representatives provide incomplete medical information to influence prescribing practices; they also offer incentives including conference sponsorship. Doctors may also demand incentives, as when doctors’ associations threaten to boycott companies that do not comply with their demands for sponsorship.” Even ‘The Times of India’ reported the following in December 15, 2008: “1. More drugs a doctor prescribes of a specific company, greater are the chances of his/ her winning a car, a high-end fridge or a TV set. 2. Also, drug companies dole out free trips with family to exotic destinations like Turkey or Kenya. 3. In the West, unethical marketing practices attract stiff penalties. 4. In India, there are only vague assurances of self-regulation by the drug industry and reliance on doctors’ ethics”.

Urgent need for change:

In today’s India, the degree of commercialization of the noble healthcare services has reached its nadir, sacrificing the ethics and etiquette both in medical and pharmaceutical marketing practices at the altar of unlimited greed and want.

As a result of fast degradation of ethical standards and most of the noble values  in the healthcare space, the patients in general have started losing faith and trust both on the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, by and large. Health related multifaceted compulsions do not allow them, either to avoid such a situation or even raise a strong voice of protest against the vested interests.

Growing discontentment of the patients in both the private and public healthcare space in the country, is being regularly and very rightly highlighted by the media, including reputed medical journals like, ‘The Lancet’ to help arrest this moral and ethical decay with some tangible proactive measures.

MCI took the first step:

In a situation like this, steps taken by the ‘Medical Council of India (MCI)’ in 2009 for the Medical Profession/ Healthcare Practitioners (HCP) deserves kudos from all corners. It is now up to the HCP to properly abide by the new regulations on their professional conduct, etiquette and ethics. The pharmaceutical industry of India should naturally be a party towards conformance of such regulations, in every possible way.

Quite likely, based on the media outcry, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), also mooted the idea of a self-regulatory UCMP for the entire pharmaceutical industry of India almost around the same time of 2009. However, as was reported, due to lack of consensus within the pharmaceutical industry, the DoP supposedly could not make the said UCMP operational at that time.

A brand new code from the DoP:

Meanwhile in May 2011, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) released a draft ‘Uniform Code of Marketing Practices’ for the Pharmaceutical Industry of India for comments by the stakeholders. The preamble of the document states as follows:

“This is a voluntary code of Marketing Practices for Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, for the present and its implementation will be reviewed after a period of six months from the date of its coming into force and if it is found that it has not been implemented effectively by the Pharma Associations/Companies, the Government would consider making it a statutory code.”

Some Key features of the DoP Code:

  1. All promotional material must be consistent with the requirements of this Code.
  2. Brand names of products of other companies must not be used for comparison without prior consent of the concerned companies.
  3. Paid or arranged publication of promotional material in journals must not resemble editorial matter.
  4. The names or photographs of healthcare professionals must not be used in promotional material.
  5. Audio-visual material must be accompanied by all appropriate printed material to ensure compliance of the Code.
  6. Samples should be provided directly to prescribing authority and be limited to prescribed dosages for three patients and in response to a signed and dated request from the recipient. Each sample pack shall not be larger than the smallest pack presented in the market.
  7. Medical and Educational events for doctors should be organized in the appropriate venue in India and all expenses must be incurred only for the events held in India.
  8. Outline of a detailed Complaint Lodging and Redressal mechanism (Committee for Code of Pharma Marketing) to ensure compliance of the marketing code.

Overall quality of the DoP marketing code:

  • The overall document is well written, balanced and fair. The DoP should indeed be commended on the great work that they have done in putting all details of pharmaceutical marketing practices together in this document in a very comprehensive manner.
  • This unified Code does not seem to pose any major extra restrictions to the pharmaceutical companies as compared to the MCI guidelines. All concerned should welcome the DoP decision that the same standards will now be applied to all small, mid-sized and large companies, equally. The main focus of the DoP should be in ensuring that all companies across the pharmaceutical industry follow the same standards in their marketing practices and interactions with the HCP.
  • The draft code of the DoP also states that companies must maintain a detailed record of expenditures incurred on these events. It is not quite clear though, as to what extent and detail the pharmaceutical companies are expected to keep these records and how long?  It is also not clear whether these records have to be maintained on file and supplied to the DoP only on specific request for the same or those details are expected to be disclosed on a regular basis to the regulator.
  • The draft indicates that associations must upload full details of received complaints onto their websites. Although this provision could help making the system more transparent, the DoP should clearly articulate the details about the specific information that will require to be disclosed in cases of any proven breach of the code.
  • It is interesting to note in the draft code states that media reports and published letters indicating that a company may have breached the Code will be treated as a complaint.

The global scenario:

Just like in India, a public debate has started since quite some time in the US, as well, on allegedly huge sum of money being paid by the pharmaceutical companies to the physicians on various items including free drug samples, professional advice, speaking in seminars, reimbursement of their traveling and entertainment expenses etc. All these, many believe, are done to adversely influence their rational prescription decisions for the patients.

‘The New England Journal of Medicine’, April 26, 2007 reported that virtually, all doctors in the US take freebies from drug companies, and a third take money for lecturing, and signing patients up for trials. The study conducted on 3167 physicians in six specialties (anesthesiology, cardiology, family practice, general surgery, internal medicine and pediatrics) reported that 94% of the physicians had ‘some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry’, and 83% of these relationships involved receiving food at the workplace and 78% receiving free drug samples. 35% of the physicians received re-reimbursement for cost associated with professional meetings or Continuing Medical Education (CME). And the more influential a doctor was, the greater the likelihood that he or she would be benefiting from a drug company’s largess. As a result of strict regulatory measures, the situation in the US has presumably started changing now.

However, such issues are not related only to physicians. ‘Scrip’ dated February 6, 2009 published an article titled: “marketing malpractices: an unnecessary burden to bear”. The article commented: “Marketing practices that seem to be a throwback to a different age continue to haunt the industry. Over the past few months, some truly large sums have been used to resolve allegations in the US of marketing and promotional malpractices by various companies. These were usually involving the promotion of off-label uses for medicines. One can only hope that lessons have been learnt and the industry moves on.” “As the sums involved in settling these cases of marketing malpractices have become progressively larger, and if companies do not become careful even now, such incidents will not only affect their reputation but financial performance too.”

Fierce ongoing debate:

As the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate, it appears that there is a good possibility of making disclosure of all such payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies’ mandatory by the Obama administration, as a part of the new US healthcare reform process.

Examples of global voluntary measures:

Eli Lilly, the first pharmaceutical company to announce such disclosure voluntarily around September 2008, has already uploaded its physician payment details on its website. US pharmaceutical major Merck has also followed suit and so are Pfizer and GSK. However, the effective date of their first disclosure details is not yet known.

Meanwhile, Cleveland Clinic and the medical school of the University of Pennsylvania, US are also in the process of disclosing details of payments made by the Pharmaceutical companies to their research personnel and the physicians.

Similarly in the U.K the Royal College of Physicians has reportedly to have called for a ban on gifts to the physicians and support to medical training, by the pharmaceutical companies. Very recently the states like Minnesota, New York and New Jersey in the US disclosed their intent to bring in somewhat MCI like regulations for the practicing physicians of those states.

Transparency: Australia sets an example: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has decided to grant authorization for five years to Medicines Australia’s 16th edition of its Code of Conduct. The Code sets standards for the marketing and promotion of prescription pharmaceutical products in Australia. The Code provides, among other measures, a standard to address potential conflicts of interest from unrestricted relationships between pharmaceutical companies and the HCPs, which may harm the consumers through inappropriate prescriptions. The Code also prohibits the pharmaceutical companies from providing entertainment and extravagant hospitality to HCPs with the requirement that all benefits provided by companies should be able to successfully withstand public and professional scrutiny. “The requirement for public disclosure was imposed by the ACCC as a condition of authorization of the previous version of Medicines Australia’s Code and was confirmed on appeal by the Australian Competition Tribunal.” Edition 16 of the Code fully incorporates the public reporting requirements.

Conclusion:

Currently in the US, both in Senate and the House of Congress two draft bills on  ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ are pending. It appears quite likely that Obama Administration, with the help of this new law, will make the disclosure of payments to physicians by the pharmaceutical companies mandatory.

It appears, India has taken an extra step forward towards this direction as compared to the Obama administration in the USA. The amended MCI regulations for the HCPs coupled with the draft code of the DoP for the entire pharmaceutical industry should make the financial transactional relationship between the physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in India absolutely clean and transparent.

It should be kept in mind by all concerned that the draft code very categorically warns, in case the voluntary code of Marketing Practices is not implemented effectively, the Government would seriously consider making it statutory for the entire pharmaceutical industry of India…quite a strong signal indeed for ‘Shaping Up’!

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.

‘Utility Models’: A process of winning in the world of innovation

Posted on by
Reply

On May 13, 2011 the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) uploaded in their website a Discussion Paper on “Utility Models (UM)”. It was reported that as a policy initiative on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and to encourage innovation in the country, without diluting the present strict criteria for patentability, this discussion paper intends to trigger a healthy national debate on a very relevant subject.

Benefits of UM:

A publication titled, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries by International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva, Switzerland highlights the following benefits of the UM:

• Fosters local innovation for local industries to produce more goods and generate more employment.

• Protects valuable inventions which otherwise would not be protected under the patent law of the country.

• Prevents free-riding of inventions by copiers who do not make any investment in R&D.

• Generates additional revenue for the government in terms of fees towards registration, search, publication, etc.

• Acts as a source of valuable information via published specifications.

• Reduces incentives for industry to lobby for the inclusion of minor inventions in the patent regime, which in turn would limit the public domain much more than the less expansive utility model system.

Does India need UM Laws?

Though India is fast emerging as a global economic power to reckon with, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) of the country still do not have adequate resources and wherewithal to invest in various R&D projects in the right scale. Thus many of them are unable to come out with the types of inventions, which would have global potential and also conform to the prevailing Patents Act of India (2005).

Moreover, even today the benefits of acquiring ‘Intellectual property (IP)’ in the business process is still not widely understood and made use of, across various Indian industries. The requisite culture, appropriate ecosystem and thereby a groundswell for innovation are yet to take shape in our country.

Imitating or copying something new developed within or outside India is the order of the day in most of the industries in India. As the UM would require neither a high-tech infrastructural support nor high level of investments, coming out with a commercially relevant innovation with limited exclusivity period may not be as difficult, especially, by the MSME sector of India. UM could thus effectively help creating both an appropriate ecosystem and groundswell for innovation in the country.

As indicated in the DIPP Discussion Paper, many countries of the world like, Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Korea, Netherlands and others still find the UM as an extensively used tool to foster innovation within the local industries.

Utility models in some countries:

As indicated in the above DIPP Discussion Paper, I am quoting below examples of UM being practiced in some important countries:

COUNTRY DATE OF FIRST LAW DURATION OF PROTECTION NAME SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION
AUSTRALIA 1979/2001 8 years Innovation Patent no
AUSTRIA 1994 10 years Utility Model no
BELGIUM 1987 6 years Short Term Patent no
BRAZIL 1945 10 years Utility Model yes
CHINA 1985 10 years Utility Model no
FRANCE 1968 6 years Utility Certificate no
GERMANY 1891 10 years Gebrauchsmuster no
INDONESIA 1991 5 years Simple Patent yes
ITALY 1934 10 years Utility Model no
JAPAN 1905 not > 15 years Utility Model no
KOREA 1961 not > 15 years Utility Model yes – but deferred
MALAYSIA 1986 15 years Utility Innovation yes
MEXICO 1991 10 years Utility Model yes
NETHERLANDS 1995 6 years Short Term Patent no

(Source: Petty Patents by John Richards – updated version of Proceedings of the Fordham University School of Law International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference 1995,Juris Publishing and Sweet & Maxwell, 1998).

Therefore, keeping in mind of the needs of, especially, the MSME sector, I reckon, the UM should be seriously considered by the Government for expeditious implementation. As stated earlier, the UM would enable a large section of smaller entrepreneurs to get a limited commercial exclusivity for their inventions, which otherwise would not have been possible by them within the current patent regime of India.

Moreover, such inventions being incremental in nature, subsequent inventions would be triggered much faster with a cascading effect on continuous innovation in the country.

In this scenario, it will be very important to keep the registration cost for the UM within affordable limits by the Indian Patent Offices (IPO).

Scope of protection:

I reckon, all types of inventions, including mechanical and chemical ones, should be covered under the UM. If this does not happen the UM law will only be useful to a small section of the entrepreneurs.

Further, a large number of useful developments and improvements that may fall short of requirements of getting patents, could be well accommodated under the UM to encourage more and more innovations for rapid economic growth of the country.

In case of chemical or pharmaceutical innovations there will also be a chance for the smaller players to apply for the UM for incremental innovation, when such inventions would not pass the stringent qualifying criteria of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. I hasten to add that some contentious issues could possibly crop-up in this area, which needs to be resolved with well informed debates.

I would recommend that in India UM may be considered for innovations in areas of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, devices, tools, working instruments or apparatus with appropriate qualifying standards.

Parameters for consideration:  

The inventive threshold for the UM would obviously be less than what is required by the patent laws of India. These should be very clearly enunciated by the policy makers without ambiguity whatsoever. However, the product novelty criteria in no case should be compromised, which should be similar to patents.

The period of exclusivity for UM varies internationally, for example, from 5 years in Indonesia to 10 years in China and 15 years in Korea. In India, the protection period should not ideally exceed 5 to 7 years from the date of grant of the UM with a much simpler registration process than the patent.

Section 8(1) of Patents Act may be suitably amended to include provision of UM. At the same time, providing details of corresponding UMs, along with related patent applications, if any, should be made mandatory.

An innovator should be allowed to apply for both patent and UM together. However, when only an application for patent will be filed and after scrutiny, if the same does not qualify for grant of patent, the concerned applicant may be allowed to convert the same application into UM, without any adverse impact on priority.

It is important to ensure that filing of a new UM nearer end of the term of patent is not allowed. The patent may, in such cases, be regarded as prior art by the IPO. Moreover, any provision for temporary protection of an invention as an UM pending grant of a patent should not be included in the legislation. Patent grant is usually a slow process in India, which quite often gets caught in the quagmire of delays and backlogs. In such a scenario, if any temporary exclusivity is granted by way of UM to the applicant, the entire patent processing system may get further slowed down.

Promoting domestic filings by MSMEs:

There does not seem to be any need to provide any specific provision to promote domestic filing by the MSMEs other than by way of providing for express provisions of disposal of infringement actions or other related contentious issues.  Specific non-extendable time frames should be provided for all.

Currently the Courts in India have very little exposure to IP laws. Keeping this in mind UM laws should have simple wordings, free of ambiguity enunciating specific measures in case of infringement. Any invalidity should be clearly spelt out to avoid unnecessary appeals and unproductive, protracted and expensive litigation process.

To make Indian industries feel and understand the need for the protection/exclusivity for the UM, suitable awareness campaigns should be designed and championed by the government and the industry bodies with a focused approach to achieve this goal within a given timeframe.

UM and Traditional knowledge:

Traditional knowledge is something, which is already available or known to public at large and any protection to such knowledge would deny the civil society its legitimate rights in India. Thus, I shall strongly recommend that no exclusivity is granted to any person or industry on traditional knowledge.

However, rights to traditional knowledge may be provided through a different fail-proof mechanism to safeguard the interest of specific communities in India, who have inherited such knowledge through practice for generations.

The enforcement mechanism:

The enforcement mechanism for the UM should be similar to the Patent System or else a special ‘Utility Model Appellate Board (UMAB)’ may be considered for speedy redressal of infringement disputes.

Obviating monopolistic dominance:

Compensation / royalty rather than other methods of restrain could be a better option as most applicants would be MSMEs.

The UM law makers should, however, bear in mind that individual innovators although will have remedy within the law in case of a breach, due to sheer practical considerations, could at times feel helpless when a rich licensee will fail to compensate or pay royalty as per the order of a Court of law.

I would, therefore, suggest that there should be specific clauses in the UM law, which will be strong deterrent to such behaviour by unscrupulous elements, for example, payment of the compensation in an amount exceeding about 15 to 20 times of the original award in the event of default for no good reason. However in such a case the appropriate value may be properly decided to effectively avoid any attempt of ‘extortionary measures’ by anyone.

Conclusion:

It is believed by many that the UM framework with a lower threshold of invention will be able to encourage domestic incremental innovation in many areas of business. Thus, by providing protection to UM for about 5 years vis-a-vis 20 years, as provided by the patents, India can further stimulate the process of innovation, while discouraging monopolies in the country.

I reckon, a suitably designed UM framework will immensely encourage the domestic players to seek protection and obtain exclusivity for continuous incremental innovation in various facets of their respective businesses.

This process, in turn, will promote innovation based commercial business models within the country by offering low cost and affordable innovative products to the common man, adding simultaneously speed to the wheel of economic progress of the nation with inclusive growth.

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.

NRHM of India: Yet to ‘Tick all the Right Boxes’

Posted on by
Reply

‘National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)’, one of the largest and a very ambitious healthcare initiative for the rural population of India, was launched by the Government of India on April 12, 2005.

The primary purpose of NRHM, as announced by the Government, was to ensure universal access to affordable and quality healthcare for the rural poor of 18 states of India, namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, to start with.
During the launch of NRHM, the then Health Minister of India announced that the nation would see the results of these efforts in three years’ time.

The key objectives of NRHM:

• Decrease the infant and maternal mortality rate • Provide access to public health services for every citizen • Prevent and control communicable and non-communicable diseases • Control population as well as ensure gender and demographic balance • Encourage a healthy lifestyle and alternative systems of medicine through AYUSH

As announced by the government NRHM envisages achieving its objective by strengthening “Panchayati Raj Institutions” and promoting access to improved healthcare through the “Accredited Social Health Activist” (ASHA). It also plans on strengthening existing Primary Health Centers, Community Health Centers and District Health Missions, in addition to making maximum use of Non-Governmental Organizations.

NRHM was to improve access to healthcare by 20 to 25% in 3 years’ time:
To many the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has made a significant difference to the rural health care system in India. It now appears that many more state governments are envisaging to come out with innovative ideas to attract and retain public healthcare professionals in rural areas.
On January 11, 2010, the Health Minister of India Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, while inaugurating the FDA headquarters of the Western Zone located in Mumbai, clearly articulated that the NRHM initiative will help improving access to affordable healthcare and modern medicines by around 20 to 25 percent during the next three years. This means that during this period access to modern medicines will increase from the current 35 percent to 60 percent of the population.
If this good intention of the minister ultimately gets translated into reality, India will make tremendous progress in the space of healthcare, confirming the remarks made by Professor Sir Andrew Haines, Director, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, as quoted above.

The Achievements:

More than five years are over now. Let us have a look at the key achievements of this ambitious health scheme as on January 2010, as available from the Ministry of Health:

  • 71.6% (10.86 million) institutional deliveries across India as compared to only 41%
  • 78.8% (19.82 million) children across the country fully immunized
  • A total of 23,458 primary health centers (PHC) have been set up against NRHM goals of 27,000 during the same period.
  • 5,907 community health centers were upgraded against 7,000 as was planned under the NRHM.
  • 462,000 Associated Social Health Activists were trained
  • 177,924 villages have sanitation committees functional
  • 323 district hospitals have been taken for up gradation

Free Care to Mothers and Children: A new initiative

In the recent publication of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) titled, ‘Two years (2009-2011): Achievements & New Initiatives’, the ministry has highlighted another commendable initiative to provide free care to the mothers and children, which includes as follows:

Provision of free drugs,

  • Free Consumables and Diagnostics,
  • Free Diet during stay and
  • Free transport to health facility and drop back home. 

Still to ‘Tick all the Right Boxes’:

Despite all these, a recent study done by ‘Chronic Care Foundation’ indicates that in India about 86% of highly populated rural districts still do not have provisions for basic diagnostic tests for chronic ailments.

The study also highlights that in rural areas, as a percentage of total healthcare expenses, out of pocket costs are more than the urban areas, with hospitalization expenses contributing the most to the total costs. In many rural areas the healthcare costs have been reported to be as high as around 80% of the total expenses. Such a high out of pocket expenses have mainly been attributed to the lack of facilities in these rural areas, requiring patients to travel to distant areas for medical treatment. It was also reported that even in rural areas due to inefficient and inadequate services at the Government healthcare units there has been a very high dependence on more expensive private healthcare facilities.

Obvious questions:

Thus even after over five years from the inception of NRHM, the current status of rural public healthcare system, poses the following obvious questions:
• How is the huge money allocated for NRHM being utilized? • Who all are accountable for the current state of affairs of this great scheme?
Even our Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh has admitted recently that “the shortage of human resources was becoming an impediment in strengthening the public health delivery system through the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)”.

Economic Survey 2010 did raise a flag:

The Economic Survey 2010 highlighted that ‘several glitches in the flagship NRHM needed to be ironed out to improve health infrastructure’, some of these are the following:

  • Shortage of over 6,800 more hospitals in rural areas to provide basic health facilities to people
  • Shortage of 4,477 primary healthcare centers and 2,337 community healthcare centers as per the 2001 population norms.
  • Almost 29% of the existing health infrastructure is in rented buildings.
  • Poor upkeep and maintenance, and high absenteeism of manpower in the rural areas are the main problems in the health delivery system.
  • Basic facilities are still absent in many Primary Health Centers (PHCs) and Community Health Centers (CHCs) to provide guaranteed services such as in-patient care, operation theatres, labor rooms, pathological tests, X-ray facilities and emergency care.

The Economic Survey further highlighted that “An assessment of the health related indicators would suggest that significant gains have been made over the years. However, India fares poorly in most of the indicators in comparison to the developing countries like China and Sri Lanka. The progress in health has been quite uneven, across regions, gender, as well as space.”

It now appears that this great initiative of the government of India called the NRHM, has made, if at all, only marginal impact on the healthcare needs and systems of the nation.

Leveraging capacity of the Private Healthcare sector is critical:

Though the private sector contributes over 70% in healthcare space, unfortunately NRHM has not yet been successful to leverage this key strength.  Participation of the private healthcare players through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives could be one of the key determinants of success of NRHM of India. Electronic Media outreach program, though quite sporadic, has started creating some awareness about this project within the general population.

Role of the State Governments:

In the federal governance structure of India, health being a state subject, respective state governments should play more creative and proactive role with requisite allocation of fund, freedom of operation and accountability to make NRHM successful across the country.

Who will bell the cat?

To make NRHM deliver desired results the Government should at the very outset significantly increase in health expenditure to around 3% to 5% of GDP and simultaneously outline, decide and announce the key measurable success parameters for performance evaluation of the scheme. This is to be done by uploading for public scrutiny in the respective Health Ministry websites of both the Central and State Governments the names and designations of the responsible senior Government officials who will be held accountable for the success or failure to deliver the deliverables for NRHM. All these details should be updated at least half yearly.

With tax-payers money being utilized for this important and critical public health arena, no non-performance should escape attention and go unpunished.
Moreover, with the help of experts, the Government should decide which elements of each identified success parameters the Government will be able to deliver better with its own internal resources and what are those areas where the Government should outsource from the private players.
Such an approach when worked out in great details will be able to ensure whether through NHRM the country is making progress to improve access to affordable and quality healthcare for a vast majority of its rural population. Otherwise this scheme may well be treated just as one of those which failed to deliver and over a period of time vanished in the oblivion.

Conclusion:

Thus, in my view, despite publication of all the details done for NRHM by the MoHFW in its latest publication titled, ‘‘Two years (2009-2011): Achievements & New Initiatives’ and witnessing some sporadic flashes of brilliance here or there, I reckon, the overall implementation of this excellent healthcare project called NRHM has failed to tick many of the important boxes as was eagerly expected by the common man of 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.

Tracking MDG 6 in India – not a mean achievement to combat the dreaded disease

Posted on by
Reply

At the turn of the new millennium, in 2000, 189 nations of the world under the banner of United Nations Development Program took a pledge to free people from extreme poverty and multiple deprivations.

This global pledge for humanity on eight key areas was termed as the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDG)’, which the global community should achieve by 2015. Again in September 2010, the world reiterated its pledge to hasten progress towards achieving these goals within the same pre-scheduled time period.

Combating HIV/AIDS is the sixth of the eight MDGs that India, along with other 188 nations, is expected to achieve by 2015.

Looking Back:

Way back in late 1986, the first incidence HIV in India was diagnosed among the sex workers in Chennai. The origin of the infection was reported to be from the foreign visitors.

The National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) was constituted in the following year and by end 1987, around 135 persons were diagnosed as HIV positive and 14 were suffering from AIDS. Almost around the same time, a rapid spread of HIV was reported from within the ‘Injecting Drug Users (IDU)’ in Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland. Incidentally, all these states have a common border with Myanmar.

According to the first joint survey conducted by UNAIDS and NACO in 2007, the number of people living with HIV in India was estimated between 2 million and 3.1 million. In 2009 this estimated number declined to 2.4 million.

As per the Government of India (March 1, 2011), there has been an overall reduction in adult HIV prevalence and HIV incidence (new infections) in the country. The estimated number of new annual HIV infections has declined by more than 50% over the last decade, from estimated 2.7 lakhs in 2000 to approximately 1.2 lakhs in 2009. Adult HIV prevalence at national level has declined from 0.41% in 2000 to 0.31% in 2009, although variations exist across the states.

Some actionable areas:

As reported by the National Aids Control Organization (NACO), ‘Injecting Drug Use (IDU)’ and sexual intercourse through homosexual route by some section of the male population have still remained the routes of transmission of HIV in different parts of India, which need to be addressed with a much greater detail.

In the North Eastern States, besides IDU, HIV prevalence among the Female Sex Workers (FSW) is increasing. This suggests a two-prong spread of the pandemic infection in the country.

Moreover, HIV prevalence within the women attending Ante Natal Clinics (ANCs) in North Indian states also needs to be addressed with utmost care.

HIV/AIDS and Drug Prices:

Pricing of HIV/AIDS drugs are globally a very sensitive issue. Currently, because of the availability of many generic drugs, intense competition between them and direct price negotiation for newer brands, there has been a declining price trend for many HIV/AIDS medicines in the developing countries, like India.

This situation has enabled about 5.25 million HIV positive persons from the developing countries to undergo treatment for the acquired infection.

In India, people living with HIV/AIDS have access to Anti-retroviral (ART) drugs, free of cost, through 292 ART Therapy centers and 550 Link ART Centers spread across the country.

As per the Ministry of Health (February 22, 2011), there is no gap between demand and supply of drugs for the HIV/AIDS patients in the country. About 3, 87,205 patients are on ART therapy through the above centers (2010).

Recently product patents for two key HIV/AIDS medicines namely, Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Atazanavir bisulphate were not granted by the Indian Patent Office giving reasons of ‘lacked inventive ingenuity’. Though, this is a patent law related legal issue, it has been hyped up as a ‘major victory for public health and access to affordable treatment’.

I hasten to add, despite this situation, all drugs used for the treatment of HIV/ AIDS are still not available at an affordable price to the poor, across the world.

Funding for HIV/AIDS treatment in India:

The Finance Minister of India in his Union Budget proposal for 2011-12 allocated a sum of Rs. 1700 Crore (around US$ 380 million ) as against an outlay of Rs.1435 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2010-11 for the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

Market Size of HIV/AIDS Drugs:

Current market size of HIV drugs is around Rs. 151 Crores  (around US$ 36 million) growing at 11% over the previous year. As per reported data, around 10 HIV drugs are now being marketed in India with 162 different brand names by over 30 companies including, Cipla, FDC, Torrent, Hetero, Sun Pharma, Lupin, Ranbaxy, Zydus Cadila, Natco, Alkem and GSK.

Globally Gilead, Abbott, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and BMS are among the key manufacturers of HIV drugs.

The world market size for HIV Drugs is estimated to exceed US $15.5 billion by 2015. The key growth driver is still increasing disease prevalence in some countries of the world. Treatment of HIV/AIDS with cheaper Anti-retroviral (ART) drugs has transformed the treatment of this dreaded disease into a manageable proportion.

Unique initiative of UNITAIDS:

For diseases like HIV/AIDS, one school of thought leaders feel that the way forward to resolve such pricing issue is by putting in place an alternative system of ‘remuneration and reward’ to further R&D initiatives in the key areas of public health interest, globally.

Towards this direction, in 2009 UNITAID, an international institution against AIDS, TB and malaria, proposed the ‘Patent Pools’ concept. This system of ‘pool’ will hold licenses on various patented HIV/AIDS drugs, which the generic manufacturers will be allowed to produce at a much lesser price for the least developing countries of the world.

National Institute of Health (NIH) of USA has now become the first patent holder to license a HIV/AIDS drug Darunavir to the patent pool. It appears, the ‘Patent Pool’ initiative to be successful, voluntary participation of larger global pharmaceutical companies is absolutely critical, though many innovator companies may not find any significant commercial benefit within this system.

Will HIV Vaccine be the ultimate answer?

Still with so many newly infected people with HIV every day in various corners of the world, a suitable vaccine to prevent the infection would indeed be indispensable to effectively control this disease. An affordable HIV vaccine could thus be an appropriate answer to fight against HIV/AIDS across the world.

Early In March 2011, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and the Translational Health Sciences and Technology Institute (THSTI), of the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India announced together to fund an HIV vaccine design program in India. This HIV vaccine initiative is estimated to cost around Rs.50 Crore (around US$ 12 million) over a five year period.

Recent Developments:

Early this year, UNAIDS/WHO/UNDP launched a new policy brief urging countries to use IP flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement.

The brief includes flexibilities like, compulsory licensing, parallel imports exemption of ‘Bolar Provision’ and highlights the success achieved in reducing prices in Brazil through the threat of compulsory licensing. The brief also highlights India’s 3(d) provision.

Conclusion:

In India, although the overall progress of MDG initiatives is not satisfactory just yet, ongoing intense efforts to control and treat HIV/AIDS seem to be paying good dividends.

It is interesting to note, UNAIDS ‘Outlook Report 2010’ highlights, “Up to 80% of the cost of treatment isn’t for the medication but for the systems to get it to a person and to keep him or her on it. Globally, only one third of people who need treatment are on it.” I reckon, the situation is no different 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.