Tag Archives: US

Big Pharma Fails Avoiding Drug Price ‘Control’? Even In The US? Why?

Posted on by
Reply

It ultimately happened – even in the United States, as the US President signed a bill on August 16, 2022 that aims to reduce healthcare costs, alongside fighting climate change, besides raising taxes on the rich. This new law was enacted, despite powerful lobbying and the vehement opposition of big pharma associations and that too in their home turf.

According to the Fierce Pharma report of the same day, since the current US President moved into the White House in 2020, the drug industry left no stone unturned battling to preserve pricing status-quo. It further added, the ‘pharmaceutical industry, including, PhRMA, its allies, and the nation’s largest pharmaceutical firms’ have spent more than $205 million in multi-media ads opposing ‘Medicare price negotiations’ and lobbying against efforts to lower drug prices for consumers.’

No wonder, when the bill was just introduced to the US lawmakers, big pharma’s disappointment on the bill was palpable. This gets well-captured in what the AbbVie CEO pointed out at that time. He said, ‘the legislation would force manufacturers to accept the government’s proposed price or face a harsh tax on their revenues from a given product.’ He also said: “So, it’s not a negotiation,” as stated in the bill. He further opined in his conference call: “We should just call it what it is. It’s price controls,’ which is what the lawmakers are ‘basically putting in place, if the language stays the same,’ the AbbVie chief added.

Capturing this new development in the United States, at least, in the recent past - Fierce Pharma in its August 08, 2022, issue commented: “The seemingly unstoppable pharma lobbying force has lost its charm. With the passage of a new bill, the U.S. Senate is opening the door to major drug pricing reform, leaving the drug industry licking its wounds.”

In the Eldorado of the global drug industry, this is indeed an unprecedented initiative to significantly reduce costs of many important drugs and reduce patients’ out of pocket expenses. Consequently, it has created so much of hullabaloo, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I shall track this emerging scenario along with the message that it sends across the globe, and its possible impact on new drug innovation to meet unmet needs of patients. In India, one such area could be revisiting the price negotiation proposal for patented drugs, a government initiative that failed to take off earlier.

Would lowering prices stifle new drug innovation?

The apprehension, I reckon, that big pharma will continue to play with - price control will stifle new product innovation – adversely impacting patient interest. Notably, to many industry experts, this argument doesn’t just lack robustness, seems more a conjecture rather than the outcome of any peer- reviewed research study findings. On ewthe contrary, several highly credible and independent studies prove otherwise. Thus, let me put hereunder:

  • One – what big pharma directly and through their powerful industry associations or some financially sponsored studies are saying
  • And – what the top experts concluded from their independent analysis in this regard, as published in the globally acclaimed journals.

I leave it to my readers to evaluate the credibility of each to form their views.

Drug industry arguments supported by recent studies:

The findings of a study conducted recently, with the financial support of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Amgen, Pfizer, Alexion, AbbVie, Genentech, and Bristol Myers Squibb, were released by PhRMA on November 23, 2021. The study was conducted by Vital Transformation. The key findings of this study highlighted: ‘Every 10% drop in the price of medicines in price-controlled EU markets was associated with a:

  • 14% decrease in total VC funding (10% early stage and 17% late stage)
  • 7% decrease in biotech patents
  • 9% decrease in biotech start-up funding relative to the US
  • An 8% increase in the delay of access to medicines.

It concluded: ‘Drug pricing controls implemented in the US would likely have an even greater impact on Biopharma KPIs given its global leadership in investment and innovation.’

Independent expert studies, published in highly reputed journals:

Around the same time as the above report, an independent study published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on October 01, 2021, found exactly the opposite. It categorically stated: ‘The U.S. can lower drug prices without sacrificing innovation.’

The paper summed up: ‘With Congress considering legislation to allow Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices, large pharmaceutical companies are once again waging a campaign that contends that doing so would seriously harm the development of breakthrough drugs. This is not true. Smaller companies now account for the lion’s share of such breakthroughs. The key to supporting drug innovation is to increase NIH funding of the efforts that give rise to these new companies, cut the costs, and accelerate the speed of clinical trials, and reform patent law.’

Drug pricing in the Indian context:

Prices of, especially, new drugs and the overall cost of healthcare are two major concerns – more in the developing countries like India. Responding to this need drug price control for pre-defined essential medicines are already in place in the country. More recent studies further vindicate the relevance of such regulation from the perspective of affordability of drugs for the poorer section of the society, and where out of pocket expenses are very high.

Let me quote one such paper, published on June 04, 2022, which received no outside financial support from this study, where the researchers concluded: ‘With induced demand and an inadequate competitive environment, the pharmaceutical industry fails to reduce prices. Supply-chain trade margins are very high. Hence, government intervention through price control of essential and life-saving drugs is a necessity in India.’

In this context, another question that is being raised – are there other alternatives to expand access to high-priced life-saving drugs at an affordable cost to all those who need those most? The most common alternative that floats, encourage more competition for those drugs as soon as they go off patent. Let me examine what’s big pharma players are doing in that area.

Does Big Pharma encourage increasing competition to reduce drug prices?

Another way to reduce the price of an expensive product is encouraging competition to enable market forces bring down the price. An interesting article on breaking the rule of drug pricing by pharma companies was published in the Forbes magazine on June 29, 2022. I also wrote on June 10, 2013: ‘To scale-up access to health care, especially for the marginalized population of any country, greater access to affordable generic drugs will always remain fundamental, besides improving healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanism.’

Thus, there should be a robust mechanism, across the world, to facilitate quick entry of cheaper generic equivalents immediately after patent expiry of the original molecule. Increasing attempts of blocking entry of generics surreptitiously by vested interests, leaves no other alternative, but price control. This is imperative, ‘as without the availability of newer generics, unmet medical needs of the most vulnerable section of the society cannot be met effectively by any country, as I wrote there.

Attempts to game the system to minimize competition continue unabated:

Even after my article, this red flag is being raised for quite some time. It will be evident from another Harvard Business Review article titled, ‘How Pharma Companies Game the System to Keep Drugs Expensive,’ published in the on April 06, 2017. Acknowledging: ‘Drug development is risky and expensive, thanks to the long testing and approval process,’ the author concluded from their study – ‘But, increasingly, makers of branded drugs are using a variety of tactics to extend their exclusive rights,’ enabling them to maintain high drug prices for much longer time.

More recently, the above Forbes article of June 10, 2022 also highlighted, ‘even the most generous patent protections come to an end and companies must face the potential for generic competition. That’s when major drug manufacturers shift tactics from influencing policy to crushing the competition.’ There are several legal and semi-legal approaches that big pharma players adapt to game the system and maintain pricing monopoly. Let’s recap it with just three of these examples:

- ‘Patent Thicket: Delaying entry of lower price off-patent molecule through a Patent Thicket. This involves creation of ‘a dense web of overlapping intellectual property rights that a generic pharma company must hack its way through in order to actually commercialize new technology of a drug molecule,’ even after the original patent expires. For example, AbbVie’s Humira, the world’s best-selling drug for a long time. I also discussed this issue in my blog over three years ago – on April 22, 2019.

- ‘Pay-for-delay deals’:  I discussed this issue in this blog on June 19, 2013. Moreover, the above Forbes article of June 29, 2022, also underscored this tactic. It explained that this is a deal in which drug companies agree not to compete for a set amount of time to maintain high prices of their brand-name drugs. The article, published in Bloomberg Law on February 20, 2020, captures it nicely.

- Authorized generics: As many would know, law permits six months of exclusivity to the first generic version of an off-patent new molecule coming into the market. Interestingly, just before patent expiry of an innovative drug, several drug makers roll out their own generics to stifle competition. Although, they keep different names for the generic versions, but pricing remains almost similar. Such a practice obliviously delays the entry of cheaper generics, at least by six months.

In this scenario, the new drug prices continue racing north. Something was to be surely done – for patients’ sake, as many believe, at least, where it all started – the US.

New drug prices are highest in 2022:

As reported by Reuters on August 16, 2022:

  • Eight of 13 drugs launched in 2022 priced over $200,000 per year
  • Median annual price for new U.S. drugs this year is $257,000
  • Some drugmakers disclose less information on pricing

Despite this, as reported on August 15, 2022: ‘The main U.S. drug lobby has said it will push back against the legislation, which includes policies that drug makers have opposed for decades.’

Conclusion:

The significance of the above development in the US healthcare scenario, was aptly summed-up by the US House Speaker, as she said: “If you are sitting at your kitchen table and wonder how you’re going to pay the bills – your health care bills, your prescription drug bills – this bill is for you.” For the first time in the US – the champion of champions of free-drug pricing market, will negotiate the drug price with their manufacturers to become patient -centric.

The reverberations of this difficult decision, especially on new drug prices, are expected to prompt the need for price negotiation or price control, primarily for expanding access to new drugs for a larger number of patients. This deserves to be a focus area for the Government, including India. Moreover, the August 18, 2022, media report also suggests that the top court of India may now encourage the Government to investigate, report and take remedial action on drug industry malpractices.

Finally, it’s worth noting that over a decade ago, international media widely reported -  ‘India considering price controls for patented drugs.’ Its objective was to address the aggressive new drug pricing trend in the country. Accordingly, the price negotiation proposal for patented drugs was notified by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) in 2007. The constituted Committee submitted a report, as well, on February 21, 2013. But it did not take off as on date. Many apprehend, this is due to intensive and ongoing lobbying by big pharma, just as what happened in the US. Nevertheless, the question that surfaces – will the above new drug law in the largest pharma market in the world encourage the DoP to revisit price negotiation for patented drugs - to make modern drugs affordable to a larger patient population in India – now?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Impact of Covid Vaccines’ Possible IP Waiver In India

Posted on by
Reply

Just when Covid 2.0 rages in India with almost 4,000 people died in just 24 hours, scientists warn that Covid 3.0, and further waves are now ‘inevitable, reported Reuters on May 06, 2021. With hospitals running short of beds and oxygen during the onslaught of Covid 2.0, the World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted, ‘India accounted for nearly half the coronavirus cases reported worldwide last week, and a quarter of the deaths.’

The report revealed some more heartrending details: ‘Many people have died in ambulances and car parks waiting for a bed or oxygen, while morgues and crematoriums struggle to deal with a seemingly unstoppable flow of bodies.’

No visible overall improvements with ‘here and now decisions’ or maybe the lack of it, of the National Covid Management Team, is perceptible, just yet. It’s also a matter of further concern that unlike what happened during Covid 1.0, the second wave of the virus, reportedly, ‘started hitting even young adults hard – leaving countless children to fend for themselves.’

Ironically, alongside a rapid surge in infections, India witnesses a sharp decline in Covid vaccination numbers though more people are eligible. The key reasons being supply chain related problems, despite India being one of the largest vaccine producers, globally. In my last article  published in this blog, I broached on finding a possible exit to this covid 2.0 maze in India. However, this article will explore some unprecedented developments of the last week in this area. To give a perspective, let me start by exploring whether the people responsible for Covid Governance in India, grossly misjudged the situation, claiming the ‘endgame’ of Covid-19, too soon.

‘India announced its triumph over Covid-19 early’:

A third Covid-19 wave is inevitable, but the timing could not be predicted, said India’s principal scientific advisor on May 05, 2021. Intriguingly, less than two months back, the national Government announced its triumph over Covid-19. On March 08, 2021, as Covid vaccination process for senior citizens and people above 45 years with comorbidities had just commenced, the Union Health Minister claimed, ‘India is in the endgame of the novel coronavirus pandemic.’ Just about a couple of months later, it sounded akin to a note of hubris for many, which prevailed, by and large, across the nation.

Acknowledging the same, on May 04, 2021, even Uday Kotak, MD&CEO Kotak Mahindra Bank and President CII commented, ‘India announced triumph over Covid-19 early’. He further urged: “We have to do whatever it takes to save lives first, even as we battle for livelihoods. And if our healthcare capacity is currently going through its challenges, we must be ready to curtail non-essential economic activities.” The latest editorial from ‘The Lancet’ also highlighted the same.

India’s Covid 2.0 – “A self-inflicted national catastrophe” – The Lancet 

Yes. The editorial of the latest – May 08, 2021 issue of The Lancet, also reiterated so. It emphasized, ignoring warnings about the risks of super spreader events, the government allowed congregations of millions of people from across India in religious festivals, along with huge political rallies with utter disregard to Covid appropriate behavior. ‘The message that COVID-19 was essentially over also slowed the start of India’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which has vaccinated less than 2% of the population.’ India’s national vaccination plan soon fell apart with the government abruptly expanded vaccination to all 18 years, draining supplies, ‘and creating mass confusion and a market for vaccine doses in which states and hospital systems competed.’

The IHME estimates a staggering 1 million deaths from COVID-19 in India by Aug 01, 2021. ‘If that outcome were to happen, Modi’s Government would be responsible for presiding over a self-inflicted national catastrophe. India squandered its early successes in controlling COVID-19. Until April, the government’s COVID-19 task force had not met in months,’ The Lancet editorial revealed.

Besides, India also misjudged the complexities involved in procurement, distribution and for speedy inoculation of affordable Covid vaccines, at least, to its entire adult population. But, before delving into that area, let me highlight an interesting mismatch.

India’s vaccine shortage when Pfizer logs a record vaccine turnover during pandemic:

Two contrasting scenario surfaces – as the world is reeling under unprecedented disruptions caused by successive waves of Covid-19. Witnessing India’s unparalleled healthcare tragedy in Covid 2.0, the W.H.O director general said: “The situation in India is beyond heartbreaking.” Outlining the reason for the same a separate report commented: A ‘complete collapse’ of preventive health: How India’s 2nd COVID wave exploded.

Concomitantly, one reads news items, which bring out, ‘Pfizer eyes $26B in COVID-19 vaccine sales for the year, with $3.5B already in the bag.’ Notably, most vaccine companies received huge public funding much before Covid vaccines were rolled out. For example, ‘The New York Times’ article of July 22, 2020 came with a headline: ‘Pfizer Gets $1.95 Billion to Produce Coronavirus Vaccine by Year’s End.’

The Scientific American also reported on November 18, 2020, ‘For Billion-Dollar COVID Vaccines, Basic Government-Funded Science Laid the Groundwork.’ It added: ‘Much of the pioneering work on mRNA vaccines was done with government money, though drugmakers could walk away with big profits.’ That’s exactly, I reckon, is the reality today.

Similarly, Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine generated $1.73 billion in revenue during the first quarter, as compared to $3.5 billion of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine in the same quarter. Moderna now predicts its vaccine will generate $19.2 billion by year’s end. Interestingly, through its COVID-19 vaccine partnership with the U.S. government, Moderna also received nearly $1 billion in research aid. The Company is now joining a list of other vaccine players to take a supply order from the federal government.

By the same token, Serum Institute of India (SII) – the contract manufacturer of Covishield, developed and owned by Oxford University and AstraZeneca has also received initial advance funding from the governments, prior to its manufacturing.

Was India’s ‘Vaccine Maitri’ a pragmatic step?

Today, India is one such country facing the brunt of Covid vaccine shortage alongside arriving at an affordable price per dose of the same – a part of which is due to ‘unrealistic’ planning, as many experts believe.

For example, on January 20, the Indian government launched Vaccine Maitri – an ambitious program to export the two Indian-made shots – Covishield and Covaxin – to the world. On that exact date, India counted 14,112 fresh cases of Covid-19. Going by a report of May 01, 2021: ‘According to the government’s own submission before the Parliament, more shots were sent out of the country than administered to Indians as of mid-March.’ Many, therefore, wonder, whether this was a pragmatic decision that helped save lives of Indians during Covid pandemic.

An unprecedented development on vaccine IP waiver:

This is regarding IP waivers for Covid vaccines. In my last article, I wrote about it, stating, on October 02, 2021, India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO about an IP waiver for Covid-19 drugs and vaccines to resolve the issues of access and affordability for these products. It was also widely reported: ‘Richer members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) blocked a push by over 80 developing countries to waive patent rights in an effort to boost production of COVID-19 vaccines for poor nations.’

However, on May 05, 2021, a statement of the U.S. Trade Representative said, ‘as the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic call for extraordinary measures, in its service of ending this pandemic the US also supports the IP waiver for Covid-19 vaccines, although the US administration supports IP protections generally. As expected, Big Pharma lobby groups, including PhRMA, reportedly, have strongly criticized the move.

Let me hasten to add, there is, at least, one exception in this area. Months ago, on October 8, 2020, Moderna said, ‘it won’t enforce its vaccine patents against other companies during the pandemic.’ Without specifying any names, the Company revealed, ‘other Covid-19 vaccines in development might already be using Moderna-patented technology.

The WTO process is expected to begin now, but how long will it take?

As the Reuters report dated May 06, 2021 indicated – with the U.S. backing a proposed waiver of Covid-19 vaccine IP rights, the next stop is for the World Trade Organization to hammer out a deal – a process that could take months. “At a minimum, it’s going to be a month or two,” said a former Trump White House trade official who previously worked at the U.S. trade mission to the WTO in Geneva. The waiver, if happens, could also be significantly narrower in scope and shorter in duration than the one initially proposed by India and South Africa.

The relevance of IP waiver:

Currently, only drug companies which own patents or their authorized manufacturers like SII can produce Covid vaccines. A global decision on patent waiver may encourage the patentees to share the formula and manufacturing technology, instead of reverse engineering, as is done for off-patent small molecules and some biotech drugs.  All companies with requisite resources may legally manufacture Covid vaccines, in that situation, leading to cheaper, and significantly more quantity of generic versions of Covid vaccines. This may help overcoming vaccine shortages, making the vaccines affordable, as well.

Some counter arguments and response:

As I wrote in my last article, the following three critical questions may arise in that scenario:

  • Will IP waiver help solve the immediate issues of vaccine shortages?
  • Can Covid vaccines be reverse engineered by domestic pharma industry without inventors sharing ‘Know-How’?
  • If yes, how long can it take?

The answer to the first question is – it may not help resolve the immediate crisis. But, for a medium to long term solution, there will be an emphatic yes, as Covid-19 fight is expected to be a long-haul one, as experts caution about subsequent waves of rapidly mutating new Coronavirus.

Moreover, Pfizer – BioNTech vaccine took less than a year from ‘mind to market,’ with support from all concerned. This is evident from Pfizer’s Press Release for the launch of Covid vaccine in the United States last year, on December 11, 2020. Thus, an efficient reverse engineering may also take that much time to respond to medium and long-term issues with Covid vaccines, especially in India.

Subsequent Covid-19 waves could be triggered by unpredictable compliance to Covid appropriate behavior of people. W.H.O has also warned: “When personal protective measures are being relaxed, when there are mass gatherings, when there are more contagious variants and the vaccination coverage is still low this can create a perfect storm in any country,”

Conclusion:

‘The pandemic is not a competition between companies and will not end without more-equal distribution of coronavirus vaccines,’ wrote Nature on March 30, 2021. It suggested: ‘It’s time to consider a patent reprieve for COVID vaccines.’

The world needs around 11 billion doses of Coronavirus vaccines to immunize 70% of the global population – assuming two doses per person. Interestingly, around 6 billion doses are meant for high- and upper-middle-income countries, against advance orders. Poorer nations, accounting for 80% of the global population, so far, have access to less than one-third of the available vaccines. ‘Unless manufacturing and supply can be distributed more evenly, researchers forecast that it will be at least another two years before a significant proportion of people in the lowest-income countries are vaccinated’, the paper concluded.

In this situation, I reckon, a temporary IP waiver would help in accelerating the end of the pandemic. It may not help immediately, but certainly in the foreseeable future, as discussed above. It may also call for an efficient and well thought out ‘Hub and Spoke’ distribution model. Simultaneously, of course, similar systems for raw and ancillary materials for vaccine production need to put in place to avoid intermittent shortages. 

As reported on May 08, 2021, India registered a record 4,187 Covid death with 4.01 Lakh new cases, in 24 hours. Capturing the depth of the Indian crisis, ‘India Today’ is coming out with a cover page article in its May 17 issue, with the headline – ‘Covid 2.0 – The Failed State.’ Another article terms India as the ‘Flailing state in Covid storm.’

As I reasoned above, if this unprecedented step of IP waiver for Covid vaccines is finally taken by the WTO, it will significantly help India – along with the world – may not be immediately, but certainly in the foreseeable future. Only adverse impact that the decision could possibly make, is curbing Big Pharma’s unprecedented profit on Covid vaccines, and that too, during a deadly global pandemic.

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.

 

Shifting Pharma Supply Chain Strategy From Global To Local

Posted on by
Reply

Alongside large-scale disruptions of many critical industrial operations, Covid-19 global pandemic took the wind out of the sail of pharma supply chain, as well, at the very onset of lockdowns. This happened in many countries around the world, including the largest global pharma market – the United States, and also in ‘the pharmacy of the world’ – India.

That there were such disruptions in India, both in procurement and logistics, during the national lockdown, was widely reported in the media. Besides product non-availability, cost of goods also went up significantly in several cases.

From this perspective, I shall deliberate in this article, how different countries are contemplating to respond to any similar crisis in the future, primarily to safeguard patients’ health interest, despite some opposition, though. To drive home the points, I shall cite examples from India and the United States, as specified above.

Supply Chain vulnerability of the ‘largest pharma market of the world’:

There are several examples to vindicate such vulnerability, both for the US and also India. From the US perspective, the country’s supply of generic and branded medicines are, reportedly, heavily rely on emerging markets, like India and China.

This point has now ‘come under close scrutiny of the American policy makers, as COVID-19 sends shockwaves through the industry. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, China and India represent 31 percent of the plants that are registered with the US to supply Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), as of August 2019. The details are as hereunder:

Place

United States

European Union

India

China

Rest of the world

Canada

%

28

26

18

13

13

2

It is worth noting, the number of facilities in China supplying APIs has, reportedly, more than doubled since 2010 – to 13 percent of all those serving the US market.

Examples from India:

The outbreak of Coronavirus had just not shut factories in China - impacting supplies and leading to fears of a shortage of drugs and medicines. It happened in India, too. Several critical supply chain issues were reported during this period. For example,  a major Indian drug manufacturing hub - Baddi,reportedly, was either shut down or operated with reduced capacity, since COVID-19 pandemic related national lockdown.

Its impact also got captured by the twitter handle of the former USFDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb. He twitted, “Drug supply chain at risk as Asia’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturing hub in Baddi (an industrial town in southwestern Solan district of Himachal Pradesh, India) is declared a #COVID19 containment zone – forcing many pharma units to slow or stop operations.”

Supply Chain vulnerability of the ‘pharmacy of the world’:

Supply Chain vulnerability related to the domestic issues in India, can possibly be sorted out by the country’s decision-making authorities. However, the country’s vulnerability arising out of the reasons originating in the other countries, needs a greater priority focus of the nation.

As is widely known – India caters to about 20 percent of the world’s generic drug supply. However, according to Bloomberg, 70 percent of the country’s imports of APIs come from China, ‘totaling US$ 2.4 billion of India’s US$ 3.56 billion in import spending for those products each year.

Consequently, ‘pharma companies in the country are dependent on China for two-thirds of the chemical components needed to make them.’ Exposures of such nature are now coming on to the center table – mostly triggered by Covid-19 pandemic, both in India, as well as in the United States.

India is reevaluating its import dependence from China:

To illustrate this point, let me begin with some related recent developments. While reevaluating the import dependence, India has taken both immediate and medium to long term measures – at the policy level.

The immediate reaction of India to Covid-19 outbreak, was to shift focus on local with restricted export of common medicines, such as paracetamol and 25 other pharmaceutical ingredients and drugs made from China. Curiously, prior to the national lockdown, on March 17, 2020 by a written reply the Government had informed the Indian Parliament about the import of APIs /drugs and the extent of the country’s dependence on China for the same.

Be that as it may, to protect the local interest, the above ban was followed by another export ban of the age-old malarial drug - hydroxychloroquine, ‘touted by President Trump as a possible weapon in the fight against Covid-19,’ but has been in short supply, globally. Interestingly, India produces around 47 percent of the U.S. supply of hydroxychloroquine. Thus, understandably, Indian Government had to partially lift this ban after the U.S. President Donald Trump sought supplies for the United States.

For medium longer-term measures, while announcing a ₹20 lakh crore stimulus package, Prime Minister Narendra Modi articulated that Covid-19 pandemic had taught India to ramp up domestic production and create supply chains to meet internal demands. Earlier, for safeguarding ‘national healthcare security’, the Government had allocated US$ 1.2 billion for the pharma industry to be self-reliant, by reducing its import dependence, especially for APIs. The government also wants to finance the construction of three bulk drugs with an investment of ₹300 Crores.

The United States is reevaluating import dependence from one region:

The Fierce Pharma article of June 03, 2020 also reported a shifting focus of supply chain from global to local, as the United States seeks to ‘onshore’ drug production, with the fallout of Covid-19 pandemic looming large on its drug supply chain.

U.S. legislators have argued that ‘U.S. reliance on drugs made or sourced outside the country has created a security issue that could be addressed by erecting parallel supply chains stateside and eliminating reliance on potential bad actors abroad.’ Accordingly, they have put forward ‘a raft of legislation’ that would seek to “onshore” drug manufacturing at the expense of major producers abroad.

Its biggest obstacle could be the pharma industry and its lobbyists:

Nevertheless, the same article also underscores that the biggest obstacle to that plan could be the pharmaceutical industry and its lobbyists on Capitol Hill. This is because, PhRMA - the industry’s biggest lobbying group, has pushed back against Congressional support for a supply chain shake-up. It said, “Policymakers must take a long-term, more holistic look at global pharmaceutical manufacturing supply chains before jumping to rash proposals that may cause significant disruptions to the U.S. supply of medicines.”

Will it happen in India?

My article, published in this blog on February 03, 2020, also focused on this issue. There I had emphasized, about five years back - the Government of India had also announced on February 25, 2015 – terming ‘2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ (API). This came after ascertaining that over-dependence on imports of bulk drugs or API, especially from China, is detrimental to India’s health interest. This decision was also in sync with the freshly announced, and well-publicized government objective regarding ‘Make in India’, I wrote.

Two years down the line from the above date, on July 15, 2017, eHEALTH publication also deliberated on this issue in an article – ‘Why over dependence on APIs imported from China is harmful for India?’ However, not much change has been witnessed till date, in this regard. The same vow is now being taken afresh. Nonetheless, let me hasten to add, Covid-19 has changed the life of all – in several respects. Thus, no one can possibly vouch with a high degree of certainty what can happen hereafter, as we move on.

Conclusion:

As the ‘Lockdown. 05’ or ‘Unlock down. 01’ begins in India – the ‘pharmacy of the world, as on June 02, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 247,040 with 6,946 deaths. India is now racing ahead with its number Covid-19 cases, surpassing Italy and Spain, occupying the global fifth rank, in this regard. Whereas, the top ranked pharma market in the world – the United States, where Covid-19 struck hard before India, recorded 1,988,545 cases with 112,096 deaths, on the same day.

Thus, the need to have a fresh look at the strategic design of pharma supply chain is being felt in both these countries. The requirement for becoming less global and more local is attracting a priority focus of Governments in both countries. With an increasing State-push for safeguarding the health security of the country, the need to reshape pharma supply chain – call it transient or otherwise, is now more palpable than ever before.

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.

 

On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

Awesome contribution in the battle against multiple diseases, is obviously the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, on its flip side, one would witness a saga of numerous contradictions. Some of these exist perennially in well-protected opaque cocoons, regardless of what recent research data reveal. The consequences of which leaves a detrimental impact on the patient’s health interests, eventually turning into highly contentious issues, in the socio-political milieu of recent times.

While there are many such contradictions involving the pharma industry, this article will endeavor to understand just one inherent dispute. This is related to the impact of high R&D expenditure on drug prices. It assumes importance, especially at a time, when the world’s most influential pharma trade organization continues arguing in favor of the dictum – high new drug prices are driven by mind-boggling cost of drug innovation, as R&D spending keep shooting north. Incidentally, many others challenge this assertion backed by robust data, claiming it’s not so, actually.

Thus, the question that comes up, if high R&D cost prompts high drug prices, what happens when this major cost of new drug innovation comes down, as is, apparently, happening now. A proper resolution of this contradiction by ushering in transparency in this area, is important to safeguard a critical health interest of many patients. A recent research report, followed by several other important developments in this area, exposes this contradiction, probably more than ever before.  

Some recent reports revealing the contradictions:

To drive home the point of contradictions, I shall cite a few references below, from a pool of many others. For example, one such report of September 26, 2019 unfolded: ‘The cost to bring a new drug to market has decreased to under US$ 2Billion’. This was announced by Clarivate Analytics plc  while releasing the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.”

Interestingly, another article had sharply contradicted the above, presenting a different story altogether. Quoting the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, it highlighted that it costs US$ 2.6 billion growing at 8.5 percent annually. However, adding an estimate of post-approval R&D costs increases, the cost estimate to US$ 2870 million. Many estimated, it would take pharma companies more than 15 years of average sales to reach breakeven.

Curiously, a different research paper, titled ‘Comparison of Sales-Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies,’ published by the JAMA Network Open on January 04, 2019 concluded quite in line with the ‘2019 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.’ It found, ‘Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated incomes for the companies far in excess of research and development costs; lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system’s financial sustainability, and future innovation.’

Again, contradicting the above, one more article – ‘The Link Between Drug Prices and Research on the Next Generation of Cures,’ published ITIF (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation) on September 09, 2019, touted to: ‘Put simply, drug companies must make significant profits on their best-selling drugs in one generation in order to reinvest in the next generation.’

The saga of contradiction continues.

A glimpse at the current scenario:

While trying to understand the inherent contradiction in the space of cost of drug innovation by analyzing the available data, let us examine the current scenario, of course with reasons. Going by the oft-repeated justification that high R&D expenses drive the drug prices up, the converse scenario would be – a dip in the R&D expenditure should lead to a reduction in medicine prices, commensurately.

But this is unlikely to happen – drug prices won’t possibly come down due to voluntary measures of the drug manufacturers. As various recent developments indicate, it will be clear in the course of this discussion that the same justification won’t be jettisoned anytime soon.

Pharma CEOs do acknowledge that they have some role to play in helping lower drug prices. However, they continue defending prevailing high new drug prices by highlighting, their multibillion-dollar investments in R&D are responsible for advances in treatments of many serious ailments, such as cancer, hepatitis C, schizophrenia and autoimmune diseases.

This was again contradicted by another BMJ Research Study of October 23, 2019, which concludes: ‘A review of the patents associated with new drugs approved over the past decade indicates that publicly supported research had a major role in the late stage developments of at least one in four new drugs, either through direct funding of late stage research or through spin-off companies created from public sector research institutions. These findings could have implications for policy makers in determining fair prices and revenue flows for these products.’ Nevertheless, in the midst of it, signs of a shift in focus of many pharma companies in this area, is clearly discernible. 

Signs of a shift in R&D focus are clearly discernible:

This gets well- reflected in the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.” As the report unfolds, one of the basic shifts is a change in focus on R&D targets. Until recently, the research focus of most companies was on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) such as, Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, strokes, most heart diseases, most cancers, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and others. Whereas, today there has been an increased focus on rare diseases.  

What does it signify?

It obviously signifies, most companies are now trying to launch steeply priced niche products for rare diseases. This includes complex biologic products, gene therapy, personalized medicine and the likes. Which is why, a majority of current new drug approvals, targets smaller patient populations. For example, between 2010 and 2018, the number of addressable patients per drug approval decreased by 15 percent, as the above report revealed.

The bottom-line, therefore, is with the low hanging fruits already been plucked, many pharma players don’t seem to consider targeting innovation of reasonably priced mass market products. It has already happened with antibiotics and would now probably happen with several NCDs.

Two main drivers for this shift:

The two main drivers for this shift, resulting an increase in drug approvals, and significant reduction in cost per new molecular entity (NME), may be summarized as follows:

  • Increased focus on rare diseases. Of the 57 NMEs launched in 2018, 22 had an orphan drug designation, indicating that they targeted rare disease area.
  • Increased activity of smaller pharmaceutical companies. In 2018, as high as 74 percent of drug launches were developed by companies with an R&D spend of US$ 700 million to US$2 billion. Major pharma companies (R&D spend of greater than US$2 billion) accounted for just 26 percent of drug launches.

A good news!

The increase in new drug approvals driven by smaller pharma companies is a good news and also encouraging. This suggests, becoming a big company with deep pocket is no longer a prerequisite to bring an innovative drug to the market. On the contrary, making R&D programs more efficient is the name of the game, today.

Changing pharma investment strategies:

As is evident from the CMR International Factbook, drug manufacturers’’ investment strategies are also undergoing a makeover. In the R&D domain, external innovation, in general, is now playing a more critical role. Perhaps, more than ever before. In the first half of 2019 alone, global spend for pharma M&A and licensing activities was, reportedly, around US$140 billion. Interestingly, it outpaced projected 2019 R&D spend by more than 60 percent.

Do high R&D cost impact drug prices and vice versa?

This brings us to the key question: Does the high cost of R&D impact drug prices and vice versa? Or, it is being over-hyped as a tool to justify high drug prices. There are umpteen instances to believe so – for example, the world’s best-selling drug – Humira of AbbVie. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of September 28, 2017, the initial U.S. patent for Humira expired in December 2016, but the additional patents expire in the 2020s.

Interestingly, according to other reports, AbbVie has collected more than US$115 billion in global Humira sales since 2010. In 2018 alone its sales amounted to US$ 19.9 billion. The report reiterates, ‘AbbVie has made and will continue to make a lot of money from Humira.’ From these facts, one can presume that AbbVie’s R&D expenditure or the product acquisition cost, has long been recovered, but still doesn’t seem to have any significant impact on the drug price.

Pharma CEOs continue to repeat the same argument:

While testifying at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, pharma CEOs had to confront with a Senators’ question - “Prescription drugs did not become outrageously expensive by accident, Drug prices are astronomically high because that’s where pharmaceutical companies and their investors want them.” However, acknowledging that their prices are high for many patients for high R&D expenditure, the company chiefs tried to deflect blame onto the insurance industry, government and middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers.

The CEOs also highlighted the rebates given on list prices to benefit patients. However, the reality is, under the current system, savings from rebates are not consistently passed through to patients in any form. Interestingly, despite such scenario, pharma CEOs don’t want the government negotiating drug prices directly. It’s apparent that none of their reasonings were found to be the genuine reasons for high drug prices, even by the US Senators.

Thus, pharma’s points of justification for high drug prices have not changed, over a long period of time. On the contrary, shifting greater focus on the R&D of rare diseases, where the number of patients is much less, the CEOs seem to be bolstering their same argument on a different ground, despite reducing R&D costs.

Surfaces a glaring contradiction:

Presenting the current situation from the drug industry perspective, the article titled, ‘Drug Prices and Innovation’, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 20, 2019, emphasized on some interesting points.

It said: ‘In 2018 return on investment in drug discovery/development were 1.9 percent, far below the 10.5 percent cost-of-capital - the rate-of-return the industry must provide to compete for capital with similar investments.’  The article also emphasized: ‘Under the current pricing regime, the expected returns from drug discovery do not justify the investment. They have not done so since 2010 and are expected to turn negative by 2020.’ It further added, big pharma, despite one of the highest rates of R&D spending of any industry, chronically fails to fund research sufficient to support adequate growth and returns to the average drug don’t cover the cost of development.

On the other hand, according to a presentation by CVS Health that cited Macrotrends.net as its source,pharmaceutical manufacturers’ profit margins have reportedly exceeded 26 percent for the last three years and 22 percent for the past 10 years.

This brings out again, the glaring contradiction between what is being highlighted and what is actually happening in the pharma business. Lack of transparency in this area of the drug industry, is believed to be the root cause of this confusion among many.

Conclusion:

As it has been recognized the world over, the high new drugs prices are an issue over the contentious argument of ‘high R&D expenditure’ being the ‘root cause’.  It is, therefore, imperative for the stakeholders to demand transparency in this area. If finding a solution to this health-related issue is considered critical, without further delay, this needs to be expeditiously addressed.

As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier. Let me hasten to add, for new, innovative and patented drugs, the situation in India is generally no different. Thus, there is no scope for any contradiction in this area, whatsoever. As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier.

Voluntary implementation of ‘responsible’ drug pricing policies, by pharma manufacturers themselves, has been given a long rope. Time is running out now. If this does not happen soon, government control of drug prices will be essential, just as is being contemplated in the United States – the ‘capital’ of the free-pricing world. Moreover, it has been well documented in several studies that price control won’t jeopardize drug innovation, as pharma manufacturers will have to come out with innovative new products and treatments – event for survival of the business.

Saving lives – more lives, alongside making reasonable profits in the business, remain the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, the flip side of it, revealing a perennial saga of contradictions, such as one we discussed above, raises concerns of their being perceived as profiteering with drug prices, by many. Such practices go not only against patients’ health interest, but also negates the core purpose of existence of the industry – surely, endangering long term survival of this business model – as the modern technology unleashes its mesmerizing power for all.

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.

 

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

The above comment, although sounds a bit harsh, was made recently by none other than Scott Gottlieb - the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner of the United States. He expressed his anguish while explaining the reasons for a delayed launch of several important biosimilar drugs.

We know, this new genre of drugs has a potential to be a quick game changer, significantly improving access to affordable biologic medicines for many patients. Unfortunately, much desired accelerated progress in this direction, got considerably retarded in the face of a strong headwind, craftily created by the innovator companies, as is widely believed. There are various ways of creating the same. However, the two major ones can be ascribed to:

  • Getting caught in the labyrinth of complex patent challenge.
  • General apprehensions of many doctors on the efficacy and safety of biosimilars as compared to reference drugs.

This is happening in major markets, including India, in varying degree, though.  In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, starting with the largest pharma market of the world and then focusing on India.

‘Toxin’ that delays biosimilar drug launch:

“Americans could have saved $ 4.5 billion in 2017, if all of the FDA-approved biosimilars were actually available in the United States, instead of getting delayed because of litigations or other agreements.” The Food and Drug Administration Commissioner of the United States – Scott Gottlieb, reportedly, made this comment on July 18, 2018.

Gottlieb referred to some of these as a “toxin” that have prevented other drug makers from launching biosimilar medicines. He accused the manufacturers of pricey biologic medicines of using “unacceptable” anti-competitive tactics to keep competitors off the market. These cost Americans billions of dollars – the report highlighted.

These tactics, as the US FDA commissioner said, are being deliberately used by the innovator pharma and biotech companies and can be corroborated with several examples. One such is the fact that despite the expiration ofthe ‘composition of the matter’ patent for Humira (adalimumab) in December 2016, its ‘non-composition of the matter’ patent would expire not earlier than 2022. The company has therefore made settlement agreements with Amgen and Samsung Bioepis, delaying the launch of adalimumab biosimilars until January 2023.

Protecting own patents Big Pharma challenging rivals’ patents:

Both these are happening for original biologic and biosimilar equivalents, often by the same manufacturers. For example, the Reuters report of October 02, 2016, titled  ‘Big Pharma vs Big Pharma in court battles over biosimilar drugs’ highlighted, although Novartis and Amgen are at each other’s throats in court over the Swiss drug maker’s Enbrel copy, but the two are still cooperating on a drug for migraines.

“One of the biggest surprises has been the number of innovator Biopharma companies, like Amgen, now developing biosimilars to compete with the products of other innovator companies,” the article observes. It also reports that Sanofi, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Biogen are also embroiled in lawsuits over biosimilars.

This trend vindicates that the line dividing makers of brand-name drugs and copycat medicines is blurring as companies known for innovative treatments queue up to peddle copies of rivals’ complex biological medicines, Reuters noted. Consequently, they are now doing both – protecting their high-price products from biosimilars drugs,while simultaneously challenging rivals’ patent claims.

There is another interesting side to it. Notwithstanding, biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to biologic drugs that could improve patients’ access to expensive biological medicines, prescribers’ perception of biosimilar medicines are still not quite positive, just yet.

Doctors’ attitude on biosimilar prescription:

To illustrate this point, let me quote from recent research findings in this area. One such is the May 2017 study on “Medical specialists’ attitudes to prescribing biosimilars.” The key points are as follows:

  • Between 54 and 74 percent of the specialists are confident in the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars.
  • 71 percent of specialists agreed that they would prescribe biosimilars for all or some conditions meeting relevant clinical criteria.
  • Specialists are less confident about indication extrapolation and switching patients from an existing biologic.
  • The most common situations that they would not prescribe a biosimilar was where there was a lack of clinical data supporting efficacy (32 percent), or evidence of adverse effects.

Overall, medical specialists held positive attitudes towards biosimilars, but were less confident in indication extrapolation and switching patients from the original biologic. Several experts believe that constantly highlighting the fear factors against biosimilar drugs, such as possible risks of interchangeability with reference product, or immunogenicity related serious consequences, though very rare, are fueling the fire of apprehensions on the wide use of biosimilar medicines.

However, several reviews, like the one that I am quoting here finds that ‘switching from the reference product to related biosimilar drug is not inherently dangerous.’I discussed this issue, with details in one of my articles, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Any therapeutic difference between the original biologic and biosimilars?

As the US-FDA says: “Patients and their physicians can expect that there will be no clinically meaningful differences between taking a reference product and a biosimilar drug when these products are used as intended. All reference products and biosimilar products meet FDA’s rigorous standards for approval for the indications (medical conditions) described in product labeling.”

The key point to take note of is that the US drug regulator categorically reiterates: “Once a biosimilar has been approved by the FDA, patients and health care providers can be assured of the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar, just as they would for the reference product.”

The invisible barriers to biosimilar drugs in India:

Although, there are no specific data requirements for interchangeability of biosimilar drugs with the reference product, as mentioned in the latest Indian Guidelines on similar biologic, other visible and visible barriers are restricting the rapid growth of drugs belonging to this genre.

An interesting research study finds, like many other drugs, the cost of biosimilars is a major barrier to the rapid growth of the market in India. The Deloitte Report, titled “Winning with biosimilars: Opportunities in global markets” also articulated: “Approximately 70 percent of the country’s population is considered rural and will focus on the cost of therapy – a 20-30 percent discount on originator biologics may not be sufficient.”

Moreover, many patients who are on original biologic drugs, costing higher than related biosimilars and want to switch over to affordable equivalents, are not able to do so. In many cases, doctors’ do not encourage them to do so, for various reasons, including the general assertion that original biologic drugs are more effective. India being considered as the global capital of diabetes, let me cite an example from this disease area, just to drive home the point.

A recent experience on biosimilar drug interchangeability in India:

Just the last week, I received a call from a friend’s wife living in Delhi who wanted to know whether Lantus 100 IU/ml of Sanofi can be replaced with Glaritus 100 IU/ml of Wockhardt, as the latter costs much less. I advised her to consult their doctor and request accordingly. She said, it has already been done and the doctor says Lantus is a better product.

To get a fact-based idea on what she told me, I referred to two circulars of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) – one for Glaritus and the other one for Lantus and found that both are under drug price control and have respective ceiling prices. As both the circulars are of 2009, these may probably be treated as an indicative price difference. NPPA notified price for a 3 ml cartridge of Glaritus reads as Rs.135. 24. Whereas, the same for Lantus was mentioned as Rs.564.84.

Is an original biologic generally superior to Indian biosimilars?

US-FDA has already reiterated, “Once a biosimilar has been approved by the FDA, patients and health care providers can be assured of the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar, just as they would for the reference product.”

However, to get India-specific, evidence-based information in this area, I checked, whether Lantus has any clinically proven therapeutic superiority over Glaritus. Interestingly, I came across the results of a 12-week study concluding that biosimilar insulin glargine, Glaritus, is comparable to the reference product, Lantus – providing a safe and effective option for patients with T1DM. Nevertheless, the researchers did say that more studies are required in this area.

The core question that needs to be addressed why is the doctor’s perception so different and the reasons for the same?

Conclusion:

In view of all that has been discussed in this article, I find it challenging to fathom that in the absence of any credible and conclusive specific study, how could a doctor possibly infer that higher priced imported original biologic drugs are generally superior to lower priced biosimilar equivalents? More so, when in India, there are no regulatory issues on interchangeability between original biologic and its biosimilar equivalent.

Or for that matter, a branded generic product is superior to all other equivalent generic drugs without a brand name? This can happen, especially when the vested interests actively work on ensuring that such a perception gains ground, boosting the sales revenue and mostly at the cost of patients’ interest.

As one would witness in many other spheres of life that creating a blatantly self-serving, positive target audience perception, by any means, primarily aimed at destroying the same of others, is assuming increasing importance. Are we seeing the reflection of the same, even in the field of evidence based medical science?

I reckon, it raises a flag for all to ponder, particularly after reading the recent candid comments of the US-FDA commissioner, as quoted above.

Could this be one of those ‘Toxins’, which delays success of biosimilar drugs?

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.

 

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on by
Reply

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs: 

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12thposition from its 10thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality? 

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

  • Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.
  • TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.
  • India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.
  • Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.
  • Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.
  • Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015.  Some of these observations are as follows:

  • WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.
  • WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.
  • Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.
  • WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.
  • Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.
  • Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

-       “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

-       “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

-      “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

-      “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on by
Reply

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers.  Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

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.

What Happens To Pharma’s Incredible Ride On The ‘Gravy Train’?

Posted on by
Reply

India continues to be one of the fastest growing pharmaceutical market of the world with its over 40 percent of the total pharmaceutical produce is exported around the world. Over half of the total exports constitute of formulations, and the balance comprises of bulk drugs. India has been consistently maintaining its supremacy in the formulation exports since my salad days.

According to Export Statistics (2014-15) published by the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council of India (Pharmexcil), United States (US) is the largest market for the India’s pharmaceutical exports with a share of 27 percent of the total, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil and Germany.

A red flag raised: 

Up until recently, it has almost been like walking over a bed of roses in this front for Indian pharma exporters. However, it does not seem to be so now, and at least in the foreseeable future, for a number of reasons.

The Press Release of ‘CRISIL Research’ dated May 17, 2016 has also raised a red flag in this area. The report foresees growth in pharma formulations (in US dollar terms) declining sharply to 10-12 percent annually over the next 5 years, as compared with a growth of ~19% seen in the last decade.

This adverse impact will be felt mostly in the US – the largest export destination of India, followed by the UK.

I reckon, there are three basic reasons for this changing scenario, namely, pricing, quality and lesser number of branded small-molecule blockbuster drugs going off patent.

The ride on the ‘gravy train’:

Pharma companies across the world consider that doing business in the US market would provide them a lot of money without facing any head wind, fundamentally driven by the drug pricing freedom in the country, as compared to any other market of the world.

This unfettered freedom of charging a hefty price premium in the largest pharma market of the world, on an ongoing basis, has been a critical factor of attraction for many pharma players to do business in the US, coming from various corners of the globe, including India, just as honey attracts the bees, as it were.

Thus far, it has been an incredible ride on the ‘gravy train’, as it were, for most of them.

However, ongoing activities of a large number of drug companies, dominated by blatant self-serving interests, have now given rise to a strong general demand for the Government to initiate robust remedial measures, soon. The telltale signs of which indicate that this no holds barred pricing freedom may not be available to pharma, even in the US, any longer.

In this article, I shall focus mainly on this point, drawing both global and local examples, as this development has a strong potential to add more to the existing miseries of many Indian drug exporters, of course in tandem with many other large MNCs.

Some recent developments: 

The April 21, 2016 issue of ‘The Financial Times’ quoted Joe Jimenez, the Global Chief Executive (CEO) of Novartis, where he said that pharma companies can no longer count on the “hockey-stick” trajectories for new products in the US. This is primarily due to the aggressive control of the drug expenses by the insurers and other healthcare payers, besides lawmakers and the public at large, of this most lucrative pharma market of the world.

As Jimenez said in the report, yesterday’s business model that pharma companies have followed since long, has now changed, slowing the pace of growth of innovative patented products in the US.

This trend is now heading north, primarily driven by the consolidation among the US insurers and healthcare providers. Consequently, the payers are making effective use of their greater bargaining power over the drug companies, especially to avail new incentives for cost savings, as provided in President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the article highlights.

To give a feel of it, I am quoting the example of a Novartis drug from the same ‘Financial Times’ article. It states, “Entresto, a treatment for heart failure, launched last year on the back of stellar clinical trial results, has so far sold more quickly in Europe than the US, marking a reversal of usual patterns in the pharma industry.”

A key differentiator in global ranking:

In this emerging scenario, all global companies will be adversely impacted for increasing pricing pressure in the US market.

This factor remaining the same for all the pharma players in the world, one of the key differentiating factors that would now play even more important role, is the richness of the advanced stage R&D pipeline of each innovator company.

For example, according to ‘Evaluate Pharma World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ report, the overall R&D pipeline value of Roche is US$ 43.2 billion, far ahead of the same of Novartis’ US$ 24.1 billion and AstraZeneca’s at US$ 23.2 billion, followed by Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, Celgene, Biogen and J&J and in that order. As a result, Roche is expected to overtake Novartis and Pfizer in the ranking by 2022, just when the global pharma industry would possibly cross as US$ 1Trillion mark.

Currently Novartis, though quite a small player in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) holding the rank of 23 (AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS retail audit report, MAT August 2016), is number three in the global ranking, just ahead of Roche.

Indian generic players to feel the heat:

According to the Reuters report of September 11, 2016, US Department of Justice has sent summons this month to the US arm of Sun Pharma – Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. and its two senior executives seeking information on generic drug prices. In 2010, Sun Pharma acquired a controlling stake in Taro Pharmaceutical Industries.

On September 14, 2016, quoting a September 8, 2016 research done by the brokerage firm IIFL, ‘The Economic Times’ reported that some large Indian generic drug manufacturers, such as, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Aurobindo and Glenmark have also hiked the prices of some of their drugs between 150 percent and 800 percent in the US. This invites even more apprehensions in the prevailing scenario.

As I wrote in this Blog on September 12, 2016, the subject of price increases even for generic drugs has also reverberated in the ongoing Presidential campaign in the US.

The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee – Hillary Clinton has already promised, if elected in November 2016, she would constitute an ‘Oversight Panel’ to protect the consumers of her country from hefty price increases for long-available life-saving drugs.

Import bans:

In the midst of all this, import bans of a large number of formulations and bulk drugs by the US-FDA from several manufacturing facilities of Indian drug manufacturers of various scales and sizes, have further compounded the future risk potential of Indian pharma business growth in the US.

As investors are raising concerns, the following comment of the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, reported by ‘Financial Express’ on August 24, 2015, well captures the pharma business risks in this area:

“The U.S. market is so big that there is no equivalent alternative. We just have to get stronger in the U.S., resolve our issues, build a pipeline and be more innovative to drive growth.”

However, this still remains a good intent. It is worth noting, for most Indian pharma exporters, the US is the single largest export market, with a stake, as high as nearly half of most of these companies’ annual revenue, and probably much more in profit, both of which are now showing a declining trend.

Price control coming in the UK:

On September 15, 2016, the Department of Health of the United Kingdom (UK) reportedly introduced a new Bill in Parliament to use its statutory power to limit the price of generic medicines where competition in the market fails, and pharma companies charge the NHS unreasonably high prices.

The Bill would also allow the government to apply penalties for non-compliance and to recover any payments owed through the courts following a right of appeal to a tribunal. The penalties can be a single penalty not exceeding £100,000 or a daily penalty not exceeding £10,000.

UK drug regulatory authorities had also announced import bans of APIs and formulations from some manufacturing facilities of a couple of leading Indian drug manufacturers, but on a lesser scale as compared to the USFDA.

Action in EU:

As reported by Bloomberg on July 22, 2016, The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has called for a halt to sales of hundreds of medicines that were tested in India, after an inspection of a research site found “substitution and manipulation” of the study samples. The affected companies include both large Indian and multi-national players.

According to a PTI report of July 27, 2015, after this incident Pharmexcil estimated that exports worth US$ 1-1.2 billion are likely to be affected, if cancellation of 700 generic drugs by the EU stands.

Conclusion:

All these developments, particularly on pricing and mostly in the US, could have a retarding effect on the business growth trend of a large number of global and local pharma companies.

Focusing nearer home, the evolving scenario in the world’s top pharma market, viewed together with what’s happening in Europe, both on pricing and the data integrity fronts, send a strong cautionary signal to the Indian drug exporters, in general.

Inadequate remedial measures could unleash this pressure to reach a dangerous threshold, impacting sustainable performance of the concerned companies. On the other hand, adequate remedial action, both strategic and operational in nature, could lead to significant cost escalation, with no space available for its neutralization through price increases, gradually squeezing the margin.

As I see it, ease of doing pharma business in these top export markets will no longer be quite the same as in the past. Many believe, pharma industry has invited these measures sans perceptible self-control, over a long period of time.

Is it mostly a self-inflicted injury of the industry players? The drug companies, in general, don’t believe so. Will this change be irreversible?  Only the future could unravel this. However, regarding the possibility of future US Government legislation on drug pricing, it’s now a wait and watch game for the stakeholders. On a shorter time-frame, the ghost in this area, would keep haunting globally, primarily for business in the US market, at least, till the end of this year.

However, for the Indian pharma exporters, pricing appears to be just one among several other critical issues, especially, in the two most lucrative markets of the world. The overall situation in this area, by and large, remains unchanged till today, besides expression of a plethora of good intents.

Thus, pharma analysts’ quest to ferret out an answer to the Gordian knot on the continuity of Indian pharma exporters’ incredible long ride on the ‘gravy train’, has also not been plain sailing, so far. Further mired by the local manufacturers’ prolonging errors of judgement, the status quo ante is expected to still remain elusive, at least, for now.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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