Covid Prompts Pharma To Move Away From Competition Driven Business Model

Posted on October 26, 2020 by Tapan Ray

As deliberated in my just previous article in this blog, Covid has been a watershed in several areas of pharma business. One such key area is its competition driven strategic business model. It aims to deliver significant value for a longer time than the competition, protected by a patent thicket driven TINA factor – and only for those who can afford such patented drugs. It didn’t matter, if a vast majority of patients are denied access to these medicines, with a dangerous pricing trend acting as an insurmountable barrier. Flying solo has been the motto of most players in this ball game, to delight the stock markets.

Interestingly, Covid pandemic seems to be changing this model. Pharma industry, by and large, is now trying to demonstrate its core value for the society – moving away from displaying competition driven one-upmanship. In this article, I shall deliberate on this area.

Covid poses both – a humongous challenge and a great opportunity:

As the article, published in the MIT Sloan Management Review on April 16, 2020 highlights: ‘The COVID-19 pandemic may well prove to be the biggest challenge for humankind since World War II.’ The same holds good for the pharma industry, as well. The drug companies are now expected by all, to play a pivotal role in the fight against the pandemic ‘that is bringing health care systems to their knees and sending shock waves through economies across the globe.’

This is generally because, pharma industry possesses wherewithal to develop effective drugs and vaccines to combat this health crisis – if not alone, but certainly collectively. It also offers a great opportunity for pharma to ‘walk the talk,’ by demonstrating upfront that meeting all patients’ unmet needs lie at the core of the pharma business. As I quoted a global CEO in one of my articles articulating, this crisis also comes as ‘a Shot at Redemption in Pharma Industry.’

Thus, if the industry reacts quickly and responsibly, it may have the chance to also redeem a reputation that’s been tarnished for years. Some of these instances are, illegal marketing practices, corruption scandals, and obscene pricing of vital drugs, the MIT Sloan article underscored. Flying solo in this situation may not be just enough, if not foolhardy.

Flying solo in this situation may not be enough:

Taking this initiative won’t be a piece of cake, either, if pharma companies prefer to do it alone during this unprecedented health crisis. The drug players will need to be willing and able to successfully collaborate with other players in the race to develop treatments and vaccines. Otherwise, their legitimacy will be fundamentally questioned, especially when the entire world is running against time.

The rationale of two top drug companies entering into collaborative arrangements is obvious – the realization that pooling of all resources together is the best way of delivering effective Covid related solutions to the society at the shortest possible time. The good news is, pharma has already taken the first step in this direction, even when some of them are competitors, in several areas – moving away from their competition driven business models, as of now.

Once strange bedfellows – now partners:

The article published in the Bloomberg Law on June 05, 2020 very aptly observed: ‘The race to address the pandemic has brought together strange bedfellows as big-name companies’ partner with their rivals.’ The Scientist also wrote on July 13, 2020: ‘The urgent need for tests and therapeutics has brought companies together and pushed researchers to work at breakneck speeds.’

One can find this happening on the ground now, as some major pharma and biotech companies, including Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, formed a group called COVID R&D to share resources and expertise to try to accelerate the development of effective therapies and vaccines for COVID-19. Besides, Roche Holding AG and Gilead Sciences Inc. have teamed up on trials for a drug combination to treat Covid-19.

There are several instances of such collaboration also in the Covid vaccine area. For example, GlaxoSmithKline plc struck a deal with Sanofi to produce 1 billion doses of a coronavirus vaccine booster. Besides, Pfizer from the US and BioNTech from Germany are joining hands to co-develop and distribute a potential Coronavirus vaccine, aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection.

It’s a reality today that Covid-19 has brought not just the strange bedfellows within pharma and biotech companies together. Academia and governments have also moved on to the same collaborative platforms, to save people from a deadly and super contagious infection, in the shortest possible time. We have witnessed this

in India, as well. For example, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and Aurobindo Pharma Limited have also announced a collaboration to develop vaccines to protect against SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.

The rationale and some possible issues:

Each of these players is bringing some expertise and intellectual property to the table. “As they work together, they’re going to create more, so you have the ‘yours,’ the ‘mine,’ and the ‘ours’ of collaboration,” as the Bloomberg Law points out. That said, any collaboration of such nature and scale will have its own share of legal issues, such as, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, revenue sharing models, and more.

The collaborators, in pursuit of saving mankind from Covid-19, are expected to find enough alternatives to resolve these glitches for a win-win outcome – not just for now, but much beyond – with the dawn of a new collaborative model. The rapid general acceptance of this collaborative model by more and more drug companies to meet unmet medical needs in many other areas – much faster, in all probability, will delight the health care consumers and also be appropriately rewarded.

Leveraging the collaborative business model beyond pandemic:

E that as it may, it still remains an open question to many, whether such collaborative model will be leveraged for an accelerated rate of drug, vaccine and diagnostics development beyond the pandemic.

The good news is, as The Scientist article reported, some pharma players are seriously pondering how to continue working in this new way – with the same sense of urgency and purpose, for other disease areas too. They believe, the lessons being learned with the collaborative models, may help expedite development of therapeutics in other serious conditions, such as, Alzheimer’s, intractable cancers and autoimmune diseases.

If and when it happens as a predominant business model, suffering patients and the society, in general, would lap it up and the innovators would be suitably rewarded. However, the paper also says, there are still some drug companies who prefer to continue working in a more insular fashion, as was happening in the old normal. But, experts also feel, that should not cause any worry, as long as majority prefers to continue following the collaborative models, in the new normal, as well.

Pharma would make a good profit from collaborative business models too:

For those who say that drug companies won’t make good profit from Covid drugs and vaccines, Pfizer CEO has an answer. Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, reportedly, has no patience for the argument that pharmaceutical companies should not be making a profit on the drugs and vaccines they introduce to fight Covid-19. This article highlights, at $19.50 per dose, the 1.3 billion doses of Pfizer BioNTech Covid vaccine that the Pfizer plans to make by the end of next year, could translate to nearly $13 billion in sales, after the company splits its revenue with its partner BioNTech. It is roughly the same as Pfizer’s all-time best-selling drug Lipitor sold in its best year.

Adding to it, another article on the same issue, published by Fierce Pharma on August 13, 2020, further reinforced the above expectation. It wrote, the longtime Evercore ISI pharma analyst haspredicted the total market for COVID-19 vaccines would be worth $100 billion in sales and $40 billion in post-tax profits. It assumed frontrunner Moderna would supply about 40 percent of the market, Novavax would take 20 percent and the other vaccine developers would split the rest. “One could look at the field under this base scenario and conclude it is reasonably valued in total,” the analyst concluded.

Nonetheless, there could still be several points that remained unanswered in this analysis. But the bottom line is, the collaborative model is not just profitable, it starts generating profit earlier and faster – virtually eliminating the cost of possible delays when a company flies solo.

Conclusion:

With a seemingly flattening curve, the Covid pandemic still continues, alarmingly. As of October 25, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 7,864,811 of Coronavirus cases with 118,567 deaths.

With this backdrop, COVID-19 has provided the pharma industry a new opportunity to demonstrate its true value to the society – not the self-serving ones. It’s now clear that no one can rule out, there won’t be a similar unprecedented health catastrophe in the future too. It may come in various different forms, or may even be from a rapid and complex mutation of the same lethal virus.

Moreover, such crisis may not come and go in just a few months – may even linger for a long time. In any case, these may again be equally disruptive – or even more disruptive to lives, livelihoods and the economic growth engine. In such a scenario, putting the brightest scientific brains of the world together will be critical, and adding top speed to the process being the essence to come out of the crisis with least possible damages.

Covid pandemic has also demonstrated that the competition-based model of the drug could be a serious retarding force in that endeavor. What will matter, is a well-structured collaborative model that can create a win-win situation – both for patients and the business. I reckon, it’s about time to move into this model to find most effective drugs and treatment solutions for many other unmet needs related to a host of intractable diseases, much sooner.

There could, of course, be some business issues with this model. But those can be resolved amicably for an all-weather greater success in business, along with protecting the society – for all. From this overall perspective, it appears, Covid pandemic now sends a strong signal to pharma companies to move away from predominantly competition driven business models, expanding more into collaborative ones.

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.

The issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India: An “Ostrich Syndrome’

Posted on February 14, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

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

‘Intellectual property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported as follows:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told Intellectual Property Watch there is a “hidden agenda” against generics from countries like Brazil.

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generics medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

In response to such allegations the International Federation on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) released a document titled, “ten principles on counterfeit medicines” and categorically stated that “patents have nothing to do with counterfeiting and counterfeiting has nothing to do with patents.”

In this seemingly volatile scenario, the key point to understand is the definition of a ‘Counterfeit Drug’.

The dictionary definition:
The word ‘Counterfeit’ may be defined as follows:
1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud
2. To carry on a deception or dissemble
4. To make fraudulent copies of something valuable
5. A fraudulent imitation.
What does the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act say?
Presumably in the spirit of the above definition, the Drugs and cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India has specified that manufacturing or selling of the following types of drugs are punishable offence:
Section 17: Misbranded drugs
Section 17-A: Adulterated drugs
Section 17-B: Spurious drugs
The question therefore arises, as misbranding could involve trademark and design, why does it fall under D&CA?
This was done in the past by the law makers, as they believed that any attempt to deliberately and fraudulently pass off any drug as something, which it really is not, could create a serious public health issue, leading to even loss of lives.
Be that as it may, the pharmaceutical industry all over the world sincerely believes that counterfeit drugs involve heinous crime against humanity.

Another argument:

Some voices in India have also expressed that ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ are a Health issue. Why are we then mixing up non-health IPR issues like trademarks and designs along with it?

Should the definition of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ cover all types of medicines, which are not genuine?

Definition of counterfeit drugs should, therefore, cover the entire gamut of medicines, which are not genuine. Such medicines could be a fraudulent version of patented, generic or even traditional medicines and have nothing to do with patents or patent infringements.
At the same time it sounds very reasonable that a medicine that is authorized for marketing by the regulatory authority of one country but not by another country should not be regarded as counterfeit on this particular ground in any country, unless it has been made available fraudulently. It will be absolutely improper for anyone to term generic drugs as counterfeits, in the same way.

The magnitude of the problem:

International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force (IMPACT) reported in 2006 as follows:

“Indian pharmaceutical companies have suggested that in India’s major cities, one in five strips of medicines sold is a fake. They claim a loss in revenue of between 4% and 5% annually. The industry also estimates that spurious drugs have grown from 10% to 20% of the total market.”

CDSCO surveys on ‘Spurious’ and ‘Sub-standard’ drugs in India:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India has released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010.

Year	Drugs samples tested	% of sub-standard drugs	% of spurious drugs	Prosecution for crime	Persons arrested
2006 – 07	34738	5.8	0.22	115	12
2007 – 08	39117	6.2	0.19	120	122
2008 – 09	45145	5.7	0.34	220	133
2009 -10	39248	4.95	0.29	138	147
TOTAL	158248	5.66	0.26	593	414

It is indeed very surprising to note from the above CDSCO report that from 2006 to 2010 the number of both arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime in India is abysmally low.

To assess the magnitude of the menace of counterfeit drugs, Financial Express dated November 12, 2009 reported that much hyped “world’s largest study on counterfeit drugs” conducted by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India with the help of the Drug Controller General of India’s office, has come to the following two key conclusions:
1. Only 0.046% of the drugs in the Indian market were spurious
2. Only 0.1% of drugs are of sub-standard quality in India

Is there really nothing to worry about?

From these reports, it appears that India, at this stage, has nothing to worry about this public health hazard!

It is indeed equally baffling to understand, why did the government keep ‘misbranded drugs’, as specified in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, outside the purview of this study.
In my opinion, the above recent survey has raised more questions than what it had attempted to answer. Such questions are expected to be raised not only by the pharmaceutical industry of India, its stakeholders and the civil society at large, but by the international community, also.
The problem of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ is more prevalent in countries where regulatory enforcement is weak:
The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus it is generally believed that the issue of counterfeit drugs is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is weak.
A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits.
The role of ‘The World health Organization (WHO)’:
To effectively eliminate this global menace, the leadership role of the WHO is extremely important. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing menace of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier organization to address the needs of the global public health issues and especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a key and much more proactive role in this matter.

Conclusion:
All stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the health hazards posed by counterfeit medicines in India. Authorities and organizations like the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and its regulatory and enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, patients, all pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, wholesalers and retailers should collaborate to play a very active and meaningful role in curbing the counterfeit drugs from reaching the innocent patients.

Instead of all these, as we witness today, the country keeps on demonstrating an ‘Ostrich Syndrome’, shouting from the roof top, as it were, that no health hazards due to prevalence of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ exist in India.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: trademark

Covid Prompts Pharma To Move Away From Competition Driven Business Model