UCPMP: Vacillating Between ‘The Perfect’ And ‘The Real’ World?

Posted on March 2, 2020 by Tapan Ray

In the ‘perfect world’ one takes ‘perfect decisions’, while in the ‘real world’ one takes a ‘real decision’ – as the saying goes. In tandem, a raging debate continues on what is ‘perfect’ and what is ‘real’, in the world we live in today. This may cause a dilemma to many, which seems to be all pervasive today. Understandably, many critical industry practices and processes are also a part of this quagmire. The pharma industry, the world over, including India, is no exception, where such dilemma and debates span across virtually all the business domains of the industry.

However, in this article, I shall focus only on one specific issue – alleged pharma marketing malpractices that continue unabated, regardless of severe punitive measures in many cases, from several parts of the world. Has it then become a universal ‘culture’ in this area? For greater clarity, let me start the ball rolling by trying to understand the line that differentiates ‘the perfect world’ norms from ‘the real world’ ones.

Understanding the ‘line’ between the ‘Perfect World’ and the ‘Real World’:

I reckon, in ‘the perfect world’ people develop ideal values, ethical standards and practices. The social, business and economic environments also encourage and promote an uncompromising value system that culminates into perfect and desirable behavioral traits for all. Consequently, there are no grey areas in the ethics and value judgement, especially regarding what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’.

Whereas, in ‘real world’, the surrounding social, business and economic environment usually encourages and promotes self-serving interests, mostly from the shelter of ‘perfect world,’ as we shall see later. There also appears to be a flexibility in the overall value system – drawn around different guidelines, for preferred behavior and practices in most spheres of life. Consequently, one can spot many grey areas in that space, which are subject to different interpretation by different people. ‘Exceptions’ to the preferred behavior are also many.

As construed by many, one contemporary and broad example could perhaps be, the ethics, values and governance – enshrined in the Indian Constitution, arguably belong to the ‘perfect world.’ The same for ‘the real world’ is, what the majority of the population, including those who are governing the country demonstrate through words, deeds and action on the ground.

Living in ‘the real world’ – most expect others to practice ‘the perfect world’ norms:

Although, most people, including several different entities, actually prefer to live in ‘the real world,’ following commensurate practices and exceptions – generally expect others to practice ‘the perfect world’ norms – following commensurate ethics and values. Governments usually, try to exhibit that they want all citizens to be in ‘the perfect world’. However, under pressure of different nature, their policy enforcement arms keep maintain the status-quo of ‘the real world.’

Let me illustrate this point from the Indian perspective, with some recent examples related to the prevailing Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) in the country. Here itself, we shall find, even the Government machinery vacillating between the both worlds.

Government vacillating between ‘both worlds’:

A recent media report related to the ongoing allegation on pharma marketing malpractices in India raised a controversy. It reported, on January 13, 2020 – ‘PM Modi warns pharma companies not to bribe doctors with women, foreign trips and gadgets,’ during his meeting with the senior officials from top drug-makers. This move was, reportedly, triggered by the report of “Support for Advocacy and Training to Health (SATHI)” – an NGO.

Prior to this, on May 03, 2018, it was also widely reported, “Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently opened a Pandora’s box by condemning the allopathic doctors of the country during an interaction called ‘Bharat ki Baat, Sab ke Saath’ with the diaspora in London. The PM condemned the Indian doctors on charges of corruption and malpractice. He emphasized on the doctor-industry nexus and shared concerns on the fallout of such a relationship.”

The above statements, as reported, reflect deep anguish of the Prime Minister for violation of ethics and values in pharma marketing practices – as expected in the ‘Perfect World.’ Following this outburst at the top echelon of the country’s governance hierarchy, the logical general expectation is, commensurate action by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), at least, to contain those contentious practices.

But, the Government seems to be vacillating:

Instead, just after a few weeks from what was quoted in the above January 2020 report – on February 09, 2020 another media report highlighted something that confirms vacillation of the Indian Government from ‘the perfect world’ to ‘the real world’, albeit too frequently, on this issue.

Despite UCPMP being in force for all drug companies to abide by, voluntarily, since January 2015, the situation in this area hasn’t improved a bit, which the DoP also seems to be well aware of. The obvious question, therefore, that follows: Is the DoP on the same page as PM Modi?

Interestingly, despite the PM’s assertion in this regard, the DoP Secretary, reportedly, kept playing the same old tune even after 5 years of the UCPMP’s unsuccessful implementation. He again repeated: “We have strictly instructed all the stakeholders to follow the code voluntarily. If not complied seriously, the department will bring in stricter regulations at the time to come and also think about making it mandatory for effective compliance.” This threat, from the ‘perfect world’ perspective, continues with the ‘real world’ understanding for action.

The possible reason for the above vacillation:

Many consider, intense lobbying by the pharma associations as the possible reason for vacillation of the Government. This is vindicated by another report of January 17, 2020 that claimed, a powerful Indian industry association has sought multiple tweaks in the current UCPMP – meant for voluntary implementation by the drug industry in India. Two of these, among several others, were reported as follows:

Relaxed rules for the distribution of free samples.
Permission for doctors to work at pharmaceutical companies.

As reported, this proposal of the industry has been floated among pharmaceutical companies, for comments. ‘Once approved by all member companies, it will be sent to Department of Pharmaceuticals secretary P.D. Vaghela.’ However, it appears, there doesn’t seem to be anything new in it, as news archives reveal, similar proposals were submitted by the Indian drug industry associations, in the past, as well.

At this stage, let me hasten to add that the above January 2020 report, quoting the Indian PM’s anguish, was denied by a domestic industry association by a statement.

The first report was denied – albeit vaguely – by an industry association:

Curiously, the January 2020 report was denied by the domestic Industry Association - Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) by releasing a statement. It said, the meeting convened by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the healthcare industry on January 01, 2020 was to discuss future road map for growth of the industry.

It further emphasized, the focus of the discussion was to promote research and development, build an innovation ecosystem, improve access to high-quality medicine and strengthen global competitiveness of the industry. The purpose was to take the industry to the next level and leverage opportunities going forward in the pharmaceutical sector. “There was no discussion on uniform code of pharmaceutical marketing practice in the meeting,” the statement added.

However, this statement appears rather vague to many, as it doesn’t emphatically deny that the PM did not say or mean those words, regardless of the context. Neither, the PMO, reportedly, has done so, as yet.

Probably because of this reason, another news article reported on January 15, 2020 that the Indian Medical Association, the country’s largest body of doctors, urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to “prove, deny, or apologize (for)” the purported statement attributed to him asking pharmaceutical companies ‘not to bribe doctors with foreign trips, gadgets and women.’ I am still not aware of any response from the PMO on the same. Hence, some people find the industry association’s statement, especially considering the core issue under discussion today, albeit vague.

Some key findings on UCPMP:

Be that as it may, as I indicated in one of my previous articles in this blog, a survey report by Ernst and Young titled, “Pharmaceutical marketing: ethical and responsible conduct”, was released in September 2011 on the UCMP and MCI guidelines. It highlighted some of the following points:

More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.
Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.
90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal control system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.
72 percent of the respondents felt that the MCI did not stringently enforce its medical ethics guidelines.
Just 36 percent of the respondents felt that the MCI’s guidelines would have an impact on the overall sales of pharma companies.

Although, this report may be a bit dated, its key findings don’t seem to have changed much as on date. It is also worth noting that there are umpteen examples of similar malpractices in the pharma industry, globally.

Conclusion:

“Compared to a strictly controlled manufacturing environment, the marketing environment for the pharmaceutical industry in India is less regulated, but will move towards greater regulation in times to come”, predicted ‘The Global Guide to Pharma Marketing Codes,’ a few years ago. The situation remains unchanged.

Alongside controversy over pharma firms allegedly ‘bribing’ medical professionals, the Alliance of Doctors for Ethical Healthcare (ADEH), a network of doctors from across the country has demanded that the UCPMP framed five years ago be made mandatory, as another media report highlighted on January 21, 2020.

But the reality is, the Government wants the drug industry to follow ‘the perfect world’ ethics and values in marketing practices to safeguard patients all round interest. Whereas, the drug industry wants the policy makers to appreciate the business compulsions of ‘the real world’ and introduce exceptions to the rules.

Both the stances are unlikely to meet a common ground, because general population expects the Government to adhere to ethics and values of ‘the perfect world’, in health care. Whereas, in public, pharma industry leaders often take vows of practicing so, but seem to act differently in ‘the real world’ situation, expanding the credibility gap.

In the perceivable future, it appears unlikely that the Government’s ‘perfect world’ expectations, and the ‘real world’ actions of most pharma players will be in sync with each other. Unless, of course, either the Government moves away from ‘the real world’ marketing ethics and values – safeguarding patient interest, to meet ‘real world’ expectations of the industry, or make pharma players to fall in line with ‘the perfect world’ expectance, by making the UCPMP mandatory.

Is the question, therefore, how to take a ‘perfect world’ decision for the people’s health interest, in the ‘real world’ of the pharma industry? Till this issue is resolved, UCPMP will continue to exist, but no more than a ‘toothless tiger’, as it were.

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 December 9, 2019 by Tapan Ray

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.

Is The Department of Pharmaceuticals On The Same Page As The Prime Minister?

Posted on May 15, 2017 by Tapan Ray

“The open secret is that pharmaceutical companies throw all manners of inducements on doctors to prescribe their medicines. The victim of their misdemeanors is the unsuspecting patient. Mr. Modi clearly wants to break this self-serving chain” – highlighted a media report on April 20, 2017.

“Prime Minister Modi wants to end the unholy doctor-drug industry nexus” – echoed another media headline on the same day.

In a step towards this direction for the benefits of patients, the PM hinted at making prescriptions in generic names of drugs mandatory through a legal framework. There could be many challenges ahead to achieve this objective, but the fact remains just the same. A study published in a well-acclaimed medical journal, even after the PM’s much talked about pledge, re-establishes the adverse impact of this alleged nexus through a bioequivalarge research study.

In this article, I shall not go into the details of what the PM had said in this regard and the impact of the same on patients, pharma companies, different types of service providers to the branded-generic business, and the Indian Pharma Market (IPM), as I have already done that. Neither shall I focus here on the action expected from the Union Ministry of Health, as they have, at least, amended the statute making the bioequivalence studies mandatory, though several other action steps need to follow. Today, I shall deliberate only on one question: Is the department of pharma on the same page with the PM on effectively addressing the alleged ‘doctor-drug industry nexus’?

A recent study:

The following very recent study elegantly highlighted the criticality of snapping this unholy link, as many believe, for the patients’ sake.

The May 2, 2017 JAMA editorial titled, “Reconsidering Physician – Pharmaceutical Industry Relationships” articulated, physicians need to balance the risk and benefits of treatments, especially when inputs come from companies whose interests may conflict directly with those of patients. Drug costs, though revenue to their respective manufacturers, are high out of pocket expenditure to patients, many of whom seriously struggle to afford their medical treatment.

The above editorial comment was based on an ‘Original Investigation’ study titled, “Association Between Academic Medical Center Pharmaceutical Detailing Policies and Physician Prescribing”, published on the same day in the same esteemed journal.

This large study was aimed at measuring the outcome of an effort by some Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the United States to regulate physicians’ conflict of interest in this area. These AMCs enacted policies restricting pharmaceutical representatives’ visits to physicians for product detailing, between 2006 and 2012. Accordingly, the paper analyzed the association between detailing policies enacted at these AMCs and the physicians’ prescribing of actively detailed and not detailed drugs. This study included 16,121, 483 prescriptions, written between January 2006 and June 2012, by 2126 attending physicians, at the 19 intervention group AMCs, and by 24, 593 matched control group physicians.

The authors concluded with a fresh reaffirmation that the implementation of policies at AMCs, which restricted product detailing by the respective company medial representatives, between 2006 and 2012, was associated with a modest but statistically significant reduction in prescribing of detailed drugs across 6 of 8 major drug classes.

Significant cost reduction, with important economic implications:

It’s worth noting, the patients did not suffer at all, in any way, with such restrictions, on the contrary were probably benefitted with this policy, though individual pharma player’s sales revenue might have been adversely impacted.

Quoting the researchers, a Public Release of May 2, 2017 titled, “Restricting sales visits from pharmaceutical reps associated with changes in physician prescribing” also reiterates: The reduction in the prescribing of detailed drugs and the increase in the prescribing of non-detailed drugs potentially represent a large reduction in costs, with important economic implications.

Why aren’t the erring players brought to justice in India?

Instances of serious marketing malpractices of several pharma companies in India are also being widely reported from time to time, both by the international and national media, including expressions of serious concern in the Parliament, and a reported Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pending in the Supreme Court.

Any instances of levying massive fines, or other punitive measures taken by any competent Indian authority for such delinquency by many pharma companies operating in the country, have not been reported, just yet, in my view. This is because, India doesn’t have in place any specific regulatory mechanism with built-in legal teeth that would deter, detect, investigate and take exemplary punitive actions against the erring players, wherever justifiable.

Is the department of pharma on the same page as the PM?

Much before this recent development, the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 58th Report, placed before the Parliament on May 08, 2012, strongly indicted the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) for not taking any tangible action in this regard. The committee observed that the DoP should take immediate action in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory to contain ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

It has just been reported, soon after the Prime Minister’s hint for a legal framework mandating doctors to prescribe in generic names, 73 percent doctors surveyed across the country opposed the PM’s initiative, raising concerns about the quality of all non-branded generic drugs. The report further stokes the apprehension of a concerted effort by this alleged nexus to further strengthen the make-believe perception, sans requisite credible favorable evidence, that branded-generics as a category is superior in quality to non-branded generics, which is not the fact.

Unfortunately, nothing substantive has yet happened on the ground regarding this issue, except the announcement of voluntary implementation of the DoP’s ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, effective January 1, 2015 for six months for its assessment. Thereafter, the date extension process on the voluntary implementation of the UCPMP has become a routine exercise for the DoP on various pretexts, such as continuing discussion with the pharma trade associations and other stakeholders or to give legal teeth into it with penal provisions.

This situation prompts an important question: Is the DoP on the same page with the PM to contain, if not eliminate, the alleged unholy doctor-drug industry nexus?

Scope of mandatory UCPMP goes beyond prescriptions with generic names:

The scope of several intricate types of marketing malpractices, goes well-beyond influencing prescriptions for brand name drugs, due to various reasons. Hence, what Prime Minister Modi recently hinted at is not an alternative or a replacement for UCPMP, which will fall within a legal framework and be applicable to all the concerned players. Although, there could possibly be some degree of overlap with the prescriptions in generic names, mainly from the perspective of protecting patients’ health interest, the scope of both these initiatives is mutually exclusive, in many respects.

This would also encourage, especially the millennial generation, for innovative strategic thinking to work out cutting edge pharma marketing game plans with active patient engagement, while charting the uncharted frontiers, despite prescriptions in generic names, as and when it comes, if at all. As a result, new warhorses with proven cerebral power and agility would get newer opportunities to hold the leash and occupy the center stage in the pharma marketing warfare.

But…the indefinite wait continues:

Although the DoP apparently maintains a radio-silence on this important issue, a media report of February 26, 2017 indicates that the department will ‘soon’ issue an order making UCPMP mandatory for the drug manufacturing industry, bringing all doctors, chemists, hospitals and states in its ambit, and a blanket ban on expensive freebies such as cruise or vacation tickets. Intriguingly, no one seems to know how ‘soon’ would this ‘soon’ be – hence, the agony of an indefinite wait for justice continues.

Conclusion:

For the last three and a half decades, ‘Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’, prepared by various global pharma trade associations and many large global pharma companies individually, has come into existence for ‘strictest’ voluntary adherence. These are being relentlessly propagated by them as a panacea for all marketing malpractices in the drug industry.

Squeaky clean ‘pharma marketing codes for voluntary practices’ can be seen well placed in the websites of almost all large global pharma players and their trade associations. Although, its concept and intent are both commendable, a regular flow of media reports on such malpractices raises a relevant question: Do the votaries, sponsors and creators of these codes “walk the talk”?

If yes, why then mind boggling sums in billions of dollars are being paid as settlement fees by a large number of global pharma companies for alleged colossal marketing malpractices in different countries of the world.

This scenario prompts many stakeholders believe, though over-hyped by the global pharma industry, ‘Voluntary Practices’ alone of Pharma Marketing Code’, has never worked anywhere in the world. Thus, India needs a legally binding UCPMP for all concerned.

Prime Minister Modi has hinted at an effective pathway to mitigate this malevolent nexus for the benefit of patients. Understandably, that way can’t be construed as an exhaustive one, nor a cure-all. A slew of other effective steps should follow from different Government authorities, in tandem. The Union Ministry of Health has, at least, taken a related measure falling in their space. Nevertheless, an intriguing apathy of the DoP, as it were, in this area would encourage many to ponder: Is this important Government department on the same page as the PM in containing the alleged ‘doctor – pharma industry nexus?’

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Indian Drug Control World’s Weakest: Pharma Trade Bodies Working At Cross Purposes’

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

“In the entire world, I think our drug control system probably is the weakest today. It needs to be strengthened,” said the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – V K Subburaj at an event in New-Delhi on April 19, 2016.

In his speech, the Secretary also singled out the pharma industry associations for working in opposite directions, adding that “if we take one decision, it is appreciated by one but the other one criticizes us”.

This is indeed an irony. Such scathing comments from an important and a top Government official indeed stand out. This is primarily because, in the midst of the prevailing scenario, where a large section of the Government is saying ‘we are the best’ or ‘best among the worst’ or, at least, ‘fast improving’, a seemingly helpless key decision maker for the pharma industry was constrained to publicly say, what he had said, as above.

Nonetheless, public expressions, such as these, coming from a top Government official well-captures the sad and pathetic scenario of the systemic failure of pharma industry regulators to bring order in the midst of continuing chaos. Virtually free-for-all business practices, blatantly ignoring the patients’ health and safety interest in the country, continue to thrive in a self-created divisive environment.

Unsparing remarks in two critical areas:

As reported by the ‘Press Trust of India (PTI)’, the DoP Secretary, with his unsparing remarks, publicly expressed his anguish for the delay in taking remedial measures, at least in the two critical areas of the pharma industry in India, as follows:

Questionable quality of drugs
Questionable pharma marketing practices

He also highlighted, how just not some Government Departments, but the pharma trade associations, which are formed and fully funded by the pharma players, both global and local, are working at cross-purposes to perpetuate the inordinate delay in setting a number of things right, to satisfy the healthcare needs of most patients.

I briefly dwelled on this critical conflict in my article in this blog of March 28, 2016 titled, “Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View”

A. Questionable quality of drugs:

There wasn’t enough debate in the country on the questionable drug quality in India. It began when the US-FDA started banning imports of a number of medicines in the United States from several drug manufacturing facilities in India. These pharma plants are of all sizes and scales of operations – large, medium, small and micro.

Almost on a regular basis, we now get to know, both from the national and international media, one or the other pharma manufacturing facility in the country, has received the ‘warning letter’ from the US-FDA on its ‘import ban’.

Dual drug manufacturing quality standards?

The spate of ‘Warning Letters’ from the US-FDA have brought to the fore the existence of two different quality standards of drug manufacturing in India:

High quality plants dedicated to exports in the well-regulated markets of the world, such as, the United States, following the US-FDA regulations.

Other plants, with not so stringent quality standards of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), cater to the needs of the Indian population and other developing non-regulated markets.

In this situation, when many Indian manufacturers are repeatedly faltering to meet the USFDA quality standards, the following two critical questions come up:

Are the US-FDA manufacturing requirements so stringent that requires a different compliance mindset, high-technology support, greater domain expertise and more financial resources to comply with, basically for protection of health and safety of the American patients?

If so, do the Indian and other patients from not so regulated markets of the world, also deserve to consume drugs conforming to the same quality standards and for the same reason?

Answers to these questions are absolutely vital for all of us.

Pharma associations working at cross-purposes?

Considering this from the patients’ perspective, there lies a huge scope for the pharma associations, though with different kind of primary business priorities, to help the Government unitedly in resolving this issue.

It appears from the deliberation of the DoP Secretary that the health ministry is already seized of the matter. The concerned departments are also apparently batting for quality, and trying to strengthen some specific capacity building areas, such as, increasing the number of inspectors and other drug control staff.

Reports also keep coming on the poor quality clinical trial data in India, including data fudging, as was recently detected by the foreign drug regulators. Intriguingly, nothing seems to be changing on the ground. In these areas too, the industry can unitedly try to protect the innocent patients from the wrongdoers, demonstrating enough credible and publicly visible real action.

From the anguish of the DoP Secretary on the critical quality related issue, it appears, there is a huge task cut out for the Indian drug regulators to ensure uniform and high drug quality standards for health and safety of all Indian patients’, just as their counterparts in America.

It is unfortunate to note from his observation that pharma industry associations are not visibly working in unison on many such issues in India.

B. The UCPMP:

The Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics of Harvard University, while deliberating on “The Pharmaceutical Industry, Institutional Corruption, and Public Health” dwelled on the legal, financial, and organizational arrangements within which the pharmaceutical industry operates. It said, this situation sometimes creates incentives for drug firms and their employees, that conflict with the development of knowledge, drug safety, the promotion of public health, and innovation. More importantly, they also make the public depend inappropriately on pharmaceutical firms to perform certain activities and this leads to institutional corruption.

Illustrating from Professor Marc Rodwin’s project, the article said pharma players provide substantial discretionary funding for important medical activities, such as, continuing medical education, medical research, medical journals, and professional medical societies, which can encourage unwanted and undesirable compromise and bias in favor of their interests.

The same sentiment was also well-captured in an editorial of the well-reputed international medical journal BMJ of June 25, 2014. It unambiguously articulated, “Patients everywhere are harmed when money is diverted to the doctors’ pockets and away from priority services. Yet this complex challenge is one that medical professionals have failed to deal with, either by choosing to enrich themselves, turning a blind eye, or considering it too difficult.”

The editorial underscored the point that success in tackling corruption in healthcare is possible, even if it is initially limited, as anti-corruption bodies in the United Kingdom and US have shown to a great extent. With this, BMJ planned to launch a campaign against ‘Corruption in Medicine’, with a focus on India.

The DoP initiative:

Initiating a step in this direction, on December 12, 2014, the DoP announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which became effective across the country from January 1, 2015. The communique also said that the code would be voluntarily adopted and complied with by the pharma industry in India for a period of six months from the effective date, and its compliance would be reviewed thereafter on the basis of the inputs received.

Not a panacea:

It is worth noting, since the last three and a half decades, ‘Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’, prepared by various global pharma trade associations and most of the large global pharma companies individually, have come into existence purported for strictest voluntary adherence. These are being relentlessly propagated by them and their trade associations, as panacea for all marketing malpractices in the drug industry. Squeaky clean ‘pharma marketing codes’ for voluntary practices can be seen well placed in the websites of almost all large global pharma players and their trade associations.

The concept of a pharma marketing code and its intent are both commendable. However, the key question that follows: are all those working in practice? If the answer is yes, why then mind boggling sums in billions of dollars are being paid as settlement fees by a large number of global pharma companies for alleged colossal marketing malpractices in different countries of the world?

Mandatory UCPMP:

As happens with any other voluntary pharma marketing code of a global drug company or their trade associations, however mighty they are, similar non-compliance was detected by the DoP with voluntary UCPMP. This gross disregard on the code, apparently prompted the DoP making the UCPMP mandatory, with legal implications for non-compliance, which could possibly lead to revocation of marketing licenses.

A move in this direction, obviously necessitated meaningful discussion of the DoP with all stakeholders, especially the pharma trade associations. According to the Secretary, the discussions got unduly protracted, crippling his decision making process to put the mandatory UCPMP in place, soon.

Divergent views of pharma associations?

Thus, it is now quite clear that one of the reasons for the delay in making the UCPMP mandatory is the divergent views of various pharma trade associations.

In the Secretary’s own words, “To take an example of uniform marketing code, we thought we could arrive at a common solution. But even after 7-8 meetings, we failed to come to a conclusion. It’s only now that we have arrived at a code.”

However, the bottom-line is, as on date, we don’t know when would the mandatory UCPMP come into force in India.

Conclusion:

The reverberation of virtual helplessness in the recent utterances of the Secretary of the DoP, has naturally become a cause of great concern, especially for the patients. There is still no sign of early resolution of the critical issue of dubious quality, both in the drug manufacturing and clinical trials in India.

The concerned ministries would require to demonstrate unwavering will and unflagging zeal for good governance with accountability, to set things right, without any further delay. When US-FDA can, why can’t the DCGI succeed in doing so? The Government is expected to ensure that justice prevails in this area, for the patients’ sake, soon enough.

Similarly, wrong doings in pharma marketing practices also need to be addressed by the DoP, initially making the UCPMP mandatory having strong legal teeth, to start with, notwithstanding the fact that the trade associations mostly work at cross-purposes, in this area too.

As I hear from the grapevine, especially the MNC trade associations, both inside and outside the country, are trying hard to take, especially, the owners of the large Indian pharma companies on board, in several ways, basically to further their crusade on various self serving issues, such as dilution of Indian Patents Act.

That said, taking serious note of the observation of the DoP Secretary that the Indian drug control is the “weakest in the world”, together with the challenges that he is facing in containing pharma marketing malpractices, I hope, the honorable Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) may wish to intervene soon, in order to promptly contain these snowballing public health menace.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

Posted on February 22, 2016 by Tapan Ray

January 7, 2016 edition of ‘The Financial Times (FT)’ reported that responding to escalating pressure on the drug industry, related to its ‘Conflict of Interest’ with the doctors and other related professionals, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has decided taking a very unorthodox step.

According to this news report, GSK has decided not to promote its brands by making payments to doctors in any form. The company also strongly expressed its belief that to refurbish the dented image of the industry, in general, its competitors, as well, would start following the same steps, sooner than later.

Whatever it may be, GSK has apparently decided to avoid the above ‘conflict of interest’ and not to ride on the trendy wave for drug promotion, any longer.

Although, many restrictions have already been put in place by different countries, to curb these practices to the extent required, many pharma companies always find effective ways to circumvent those restrictions, as many report highlights.

In this scenario, GSK has taken a bold and calculated decision to swim against the tide. Respecting public outcry and sensitiveness on the subject, it has decided against engaging paid physician speakers, as an integral of the brand marketing strategy, any longer. More importantly, this decision of the company is absolutely voluntary, transparent, and its faithful implementation level can also be monitored externally.

The consequences of this ‘Conflict of Interest’:

Available reports indicate that the consequences of alleged marketing malpractices of any kind, attract some serious financial consequences for the pharma players, provided of course, if one gets caught, especially in the United States or Europe.

A February 24, 2014 article highlights that in the last few years alone, pharmaceutical companies have agreed to pay over US$13 billion to resolve only U.S. Department of Justice allegations of ‘fraudulent marketing practices’.

Dwelling on the subject, a November 6, 2014, BBC News commented, “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

It is worth noting, all those pharma players paying hefty fines due to alleged marketing misadventures of humongous proportion, also prominently display their well-crafted code of ethics of pharma marketing practices in their respective websites, vowing for strict voluntary adherence. Nevertheless, the (mal)practice goes on, unabated.

Did a recent deterrent work in America?

Despite recent enactment of “Physician Payments Sunshine Act”, such practices of pharma companies continue unabated even in the World’s largest pharma market – the United States.

As is known by many, the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act’ is a healthcare law enacted in the United States in 2010 to increase transparency of financial relationships between health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and biologicals that participate in US federal health care programs to submit annual data on payment and other transfers of value that they make to physicians and teaching hospitals. The data submission period is followed by 45 days for physicians to review their ‘Open Payments’ data and dispute errors before the public release.

On July 1, 2015, ‘ProPublica’ – an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, published an article titled, “Dollars for Docs: How Industry Dollars Reach Your Doctors.” Quoting the public database, it reported that in 2014, 1,630 pharma companies in the United States disclosed a hefty total payment of US$ 3.53 billion to 681,432 doctors. The maximum total payment received by a single doctor during this period was US$ $43.9 million.

Published names of ‘Top 20 Companies’:

According to ‘ProPublica’, the money that the following 20 companies spend on interactions with doctors in the United States, excluding research and royalties, is as follows:

Pfizer: $30M,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals: $20.5M
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals: $19.1M
Forest Laboratories: $17.2M
Allergan: $15.5M
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical: $15M
Sanofi and Genzyme: $14.6M
AbbVie: $13.5M
Genentech: $12.9M
Intuitive Surgical: $12.8M
Novo Nordisk: $12.4M
Depuy Synthes Sales: $12M
Bristol Myers Squibb: $11.9M
Eli Lilly: $11.7M
Teva: $11.6M
Novartis: $11.5M
Boehringer Ingelheim: $10.8M
Stryker: $10.3M
Merck Sharp & Dohme: $10.3M
Takeda: $9.68M

GlaxoSmithKline not featuring in the list:

Interestingly, I could not locate GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) featuring in this specific list of the top 20 companies in the United States. Some industry watchers comment that this could well be an outcome of other unorthodox measures taken by GSK earlier to revamp its reputation, dented by the widely reported Chinese bribery scandal and also a huge settlement of US$3 billion with the Government of the United States, for alleged marketing malpractices. Whatever it is, GSK has now initiated some tangible policy decisions in this regard, unlike most of its counterparts.

Alleged pharma malpractices are rampant in India too:

Frequent reports of Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the same subject. It has also been reported that a related case is now pending before the Supreme Court against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the hearing.

On May 08, 2012, the ‘Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare’ presented its 58th Report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Indian Parliament. The committee, with a strong indictment against the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), observed that the DoP should take decisive action, without any further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory, so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Unfortunately, nothing substantive has happened on the ground regarding this issue as on date, excepting announcement of voluntary implementation of the DoP’s ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, effective January 1, 2015 for six months for its assessment. Thereafter, the date extension process on the voluntary implementation of the UCPMP has become a routine exercise for the DoP, on the pretext of continuing discussion on the subject with the pharma trade associations and other stakeholders.

Nevertheless, incidences of alleged marketing malpractices are still unfolding today and getting dragged into the futile public debate. In a situation like this, I reckon, the Government is expected to play a more proactive role by all, instead of maintaining the status quo, any longer.

‘Voluntary practice’ concept alone, has not worked, anywhere:

Strong internal and external business performance pressures, while navigating through turbulent business environment with strong headwinds, could temporarily unnerve even the seasoned managers with nerves made of steel, as it were. It has been happening all the time, now more frequently, despite having stringent ‘voluntary pharma marketing practices’ codes in place, for many different reasons.

This has been vindicated by a recent research published by ‘PLOS Medicine’ on January 26, 2016.

The study states that European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. However, in the United Kingdom (UK), as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States, pharma industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and also) shedding light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion.

The paper provided credible evidence of the limited capacity of the UK’s self-regulatory arrangements to expose marketing violations. It recommended that the UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions.

Thus, all-weather ‘voluntary practice of ethical pharma marketing code model’ alone, is either failing or has failed, almost everywhere in the world. GSK’s is a novel, but solo attempt and may not necessarily be imbibed by others.

Appropriate regulations and robust laws, instilling not just the ‘fear of God’ to the violators, but also promising justice to all, would always be a strong deterrent in those trying situations, especially in countries like, India, unless of course, any person or a legal entity is a hardcore manipulator with its key focus just on profiteering.

Restoring tarnished image:

GSK has taken the above bold step to restore its tarnished image, after receiving body blows related to several scandals, as it were. Commendably, it did not continue doing the same, unlike many others. Instead, the leadership of the Company demonstrated sensitivity to public outrage.

GSK won’t be a solitary example of pharma marketing malpractices. There are other large drug companies too, who even after meeting with similar public disgrace, keep charting the same old path to maximize brand sales by paying for the doctors, either directly or in several other forms, as many reports have alleged.

To offset all such marketing related expenses, and thereafter earn a huge profit, many of them keep the new drug prices exorbitantly high, adversely impacting the access of those drugs to many of those, who need them the most. This is besides taking hefty annual increases on existing brand pricing, even when inflation is very low to moderate.

Access to drugs for all needy patients is ‘Government responsibility’:

To justify access barrier to high priced drugs for a large number of patients globally, most pharma players and their trade associations have a ready answer in their advocacy toolkit. It says, ensuring access to drugs for all needy patients is the responsibility of the Government, not of the drug companies.

As a result, the trust deficit between the pharma industry and the general public is increasing, further denting its image. At present, when many national Governments are initiating action or are contemplating to do so, to contain such insensitive practices, the industry probably would require to pause for a while, take a step back and ponder – what next?

Restoring the tarnished image of the drug industry is a challenging ball game, far beyond the capabilities of even the richest pharma associations of the world, and their over-paid lobbyists. Crafty creation of any facade to hoodwink all, is no longer working to achieve their self serving purposes. Today, the public, in general, seems to understand much more about their reasonably affordable healthcare needs and wants, than what these trade associations’ possibly think about them.

Otherwise, why would Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton – one of the strongest contenders for American Presidency this time, would tweet on January 28, 2016 addressing her voters and admirers with the following vow:

“We will go after pharmaceutical companies that gouge patients with pricing. They are wrong, and we will stop them.”

My experience tells me that astute pharma CEOs, by and large, still command much higher credibility than their trade associations. Thus, the top leadership of the respective organizations would require taking the ‘image revamping exercise’ in their own hands, directly. It is essential to publicly demonstrate that most of them are aligned and in sync with the emerging new paradigm of changing aspirations, needs and wants of the patients and other key stakeholders. Future business excellence would demand inclusive growth. GSK is just an example of a CEO’s bold response to address this challenge of change – ‘a small step but a giant leap’ in this direction.

Conclusion:

In my view, all these contentious practices are basically being prompted by the strong intent of most of the pharma CEOs to ‘play safe’, in order to deliver expected shareholder value.

Any unorthodox approach to rebuild the tarnished image is usually risky, generally frowned upon and discouraged by the industry. Other vested interests often join them too. All these retarding forces express grave apprehensions on any fresh look by a company to mend fences with its key stakeholder – the patients and the public, in general.

The recent GSK example is no exception. Apprehensions have already been expressed, whether this untested fresh thinking, against a widely perceived corrupt practice of paying physician speakers for indirect brand promotion would really be able to boost its image, without cutting into revenue. Some would take a step further and question, would a rejuvenated image ultimately fetch expected growth in sales revenue and profit?

Only time will tell us the consequences of this uncommon and unorthodox decision taken by a courageous leader in the pharma industry.

In India, even the Government seems to have gone into a deep slumber on this issue. Despite reported discussions with the stakeholders several times, Government’s UCPMP still remains voluntary, with the DoP holding the same old ground, where it started from on January 1, 2015. It is difficult to fathom, whether intense industry lobbying is influencing a long overdue decision in favor of the patients’ overall interest.

However, there is good news also. According to a February 6, 2016 media report, ‘The Medical Council of India (MCI), for the first time ever, is set to notify specific punishments for errant doctors based on the value of favors or freebies received from drug players, under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015.

That apart, to revamp its dented image, the decision of GSK against paid physician speakers as an integral part of brand promotion, is not just a gutsy step with a sharp focus on restoring business ethics and values, but more laudably a voluntary one. Would others follow it too, including in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Voluntary Practice Alone of Pharma Marketing Code, Has Never Worked…Anywhere

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Since the last three and a half decades, ‘Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’, prepared by various global pharma trade associations and most of the large global pharma companies individually, have come into existence for strictest voluntary adherence. These are being relentlessly propagated as panacea for all marketing malpractices in the drug industry.

Squeaky clean ‘pharma marketing codes for voluntary practices’ can be seen well placed in the websites of almost all large global pharma players and their trade associations.

Though its concept and intent are both commendable, following the regular flow of media reports on this topic, a relevant question surfaces: Do the votaries, sponsors and creators of these codes “walk the talk”?

If yes, why then mind boggling sums in billions of dollars are being paid as settlement fees by large number of global pharma companies for alleged colossal marketing malpractices in different countries of the world.

This scenario prompts a large number of stakeholders believe, though over-hyped by the global pharma industry, ‘Voluntary Practices’ alone of Pharma Marketing Code’, has never worked anywhere in the world.

In this article, I shall discuss this very point in the Indian context, following the recent decisions and developments related to ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’.

No more proof required:

Although no further proof is required to vindicate the point, just to put this particular deliberation into perspective, I would cite below no more than a couple of recent examples of comments and arguments on this subject, out of so many, as are being frequently reported by the international media:

A February 24, 2014 article highlights that in the last few years alone pharmaceutical companies have agreed to pay over US$13 billion to resolve only U.S. Department of Justice allegations of fraudulent marketing practices.

On November 6, 2014, BBC News deliberated and commented, “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

It is worth noting, all those pharma players paying hefty fines due to alleged humongous marketing misadventures, also prominently display their well-crafted codes of pharma marketing practices for strict voluntary adherence in their respective websites.

Why are such wrongdoers not brought to book in India?

Instances of serious marketing malpractices by several pharma companies in India are also being widely reported from time to time by both the international and national media, including television channels. Even a Standing Committee of Indian Parliament had expressed its grave concern on the subject and urged the Government to place stringent deterrent measures in this area, soon.

Concernedly, instances of levying massive fines or for that matter any other punitive measures taken by any competent authority for similar delinquency in the local drug industry have not been reported from India, just yet. This is only because, India doesn’t have in place any specific regulatory and legal framework as deterrent that would detect, investigate and decide on punitive measures against the erring pharma companies for such misconducts, wherever justifiable.

Government decided to implement a globally failed model:

Personally I have high regards on a large number of astute bureaucrats in India, whom I had occasions to interact with both one-on-one and in groups. Most of their minds are razor sharp and the analytical ability is of the highest order. I am reasonably confident that they know quite well what would work and what would not, to get the expected results in India. The chronicle of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ in that sense is intriguing.

Be that as it may, the bottom-line is, totally ignoring the reality in this regard, the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) wanted to make a beginning with the failed model of ‘Voluntary Practices’ of the UCPMP in India.

Accordingly, on December 12, 2014, by a circular to Pharma Industry Associations, namely, IPA, OPPI, IDMA, CIPI, FOPE and SPIC, the DoP announced ‘The Uniform Code of Pharmaceuticals Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’. The communique said that the code would be voluntarily adopted and complied with by the Pharma Industry in India for a period of six months effective January 1, 2015.

The DoP also stated that the compliance to this code would be reviewed thereafter on the basis of the inputs received.

I discussed the key issues related to this DoP circular on voluntary implementation of UCPMP in my blog post of December 29, 2014 titled, “India’s Pharma Marketing Code (UCPMP): Is It Crafted Well Enough To Deliver The Deliverables?”

The time for review:

Thereafter, the clock started ticking to catch the 6-month deadline. As June 2015 took its place in the pages of history, it was about time to ascertain the quality, depth, breadth and seriousness level of implementation of the UCPMP during the past six-month period.

Meanwhile a media report of August 4, 2015 speculated that the Government is planning to make the UCPMP mandatory on the drug and medical devices industry, making it tighter and providing teeth to it.

Has voluntary implementation of UCPMP made any difference?

Stakeholders are now curious to know, what difference has the voluntary UCPMP made during January – June 2015, period?

The mechanism as enunciated by the DoP in its above circular prescribes a virtually unimplementable review process, making the whole exercise subjective and creating a ‘your perception versus my perception’ sort of situation.

This gets vindicated when a leading news daily of India quoting an industry person reported, “There are (only) 15-20% black sheep who are bringing bad name to the entire industry”. Come on…this is a totally subjective, baseless and no more than just an off the cuff comment.

Voluntary implementation requirements of UCPMP grossly impractical:

The ‘Mode of Operation’ of voluntary UCPMP was listed by the DoP under point 8 of its above circular, as follows:

All the Indian Pharmaceutical Manufacturer associations will have UCMP uploaded on their website.

All the associations will upload on their website the detail procedure (as stated in Para 10) of lodging complaints.

All the associations will also have a provision on their website for uploading the details of complaints received i.e. the nature of complaint, the company against whom the complaint has been made, the action taken by the committees under the association including the present status in the complaint and such details of a complaint should remain uploaded in the website for three years. The details of proceedings in a complaint and decisions thereafter will be sent by the concerned Association on Quarterly basis, to National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, on following address: Member Secretary, NPPA, 3^rd Floor, YMCA Cultural Centre Building, 1 Jai Singh Road, New Delhi.

The above UCPMP circular finally says:

“The Managing Director/CEO of the company is ultimately responsible for ensuring the adherence to the code and a self declaration, in the format given in annexure shall be submitted by the executive head of the company within two months of date of issue of UCPMP and thereafter within two months of end of every financial year to the Association for uploading the same on the website of the Association. The same must be uploaded on the website of the company also.”

Unrealistic review process:

I have two fundamental questions in this regard, as follows:

1. Do all pharma Trade Associations have websites?

It appeared from my Internet search that just one pharma trade association in India has a website. However, I could not gather the required details even from that particular association’s website.

The readers may also try to locate the very existence of other Indian pharma trade associations’ websites, if I have made any mistakes during my trip to the cyberspace, and attempt to get the relevant details on UCPMP as stated in the DoP circular.

2. Are all ‘voluntary compliance letters’ from the Managing Directors in place?

Are voluntary compliance letters on UCPMP from all Managing Directors of all the pharma companies are with the Department of Pharmaceuticals by now? If not, based on which information the above news item reported that only 15-20 percent of the pharma companies did not comply with the voluntary UCPMP?

Relying only on ‘Voluntary Practice of Code’ is a globally failed model:

A healthy ecosystem for ethical marketing practices should be created and propagated within the pharma organizations of all size and scale of operation. In that sense, voluntary code of pharmaceutical marketing practices prepared by individual pharma organizations or their trade associations such as IFPMA play a commendable role. However, only those are not just enough anywhere in the world, as enumerated above.

Encouragement for voluntary practice of pharma marketing codes by the stakeholders is desirable in India too, predominantly to catalyze a change in the decades old and overall fragile ‘Jugaad’ mindset in this important area of pharma business.

In that sense, just as a starter, DoP’s initial push with voluntary practice of UCPMP is conceptually understandable, though the Department appeared to have messed up totally in its critical operationalization area for the purpose of a diligent review after 6-months.

Many countries initially relied on ‘voluntary practice’ of Pharma Marketing Codes crafted by the pharma players and their global trade associations, mostly in line with the Gold Standard of IFPMA Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices. However, later on, all these countries had to put in place other regulatory and legal checks and balances for the interest of patients.

Why ‘voluntary practice’ concept alone, is not enough?

Strong internal and external performance pressures, while navigating through turbulent business environment facing strong head winds, could temporarily unnerve even the seasoned persons with nerves made of steel, as it were. It has been happening all the time, now more frequently, for different reasons.

Thus, all-weather ‘voluntary practice of marketing code model’ in isolation, has globally failed in the pharma industry, almost everywhere.

Appropriate regulations and robust laws promising justice to all, would always demonstrate a commendable role as a tough deterrent in those trying situations, unless any person or a legal entity is a hardcore manipulator focusing just on profiteering.

Related laws and regulation in other countries:

Most developed nations, such as Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, to name a few, have robust laws and regulations in this area, which act as serious deterrents to pharma marketing malpractices.

These deterrents fall primarily into the following three areas:

Specific anti-corruption regulatory and legal agencies:

Many Governments, such as, the United States and the member countries of the European Union (EU), are strictly enforcing appropriate legal and regulatory measures through dedicated enforcement agencies constituted specially for this purpose. These agencies can investigate any wrongdoings in the pharma marketing area and initiate judicial proceedings.

Specific anti-bribery Acts covering even overseas activities:

Current anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in many countries, such as, the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or the Bribery Act of the United Kingdom have impacted several global pharma players pretty hard, as these laws affect them even beyond the shores of their respective countries for indulging in marketing malpractices.

Public disclosures:

One such example is ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States. This was a part of its healthcare reform bill that was adopted in March 2010 and was finally released in March 2013.

Under the Sunshine Act, data on payments and gifts made to physicians and teaching hospitals by medical device and pharmaceutical companies must be publicly available on a searchable federal database, starting in September 2014.

What may happen, if UCPMP is made mandatory:

If UCPMP is made mandatory, I would suggest at least the following three actions:

Appropriate transparent rules, regulations and laws with adequate teeth to address this specific purpose either to be framed afresh or the existing anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws to be amended as required, besides others.

A competent fully empowered authority within the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) should be accountable for administration and implementation of the UCPMP effectively. The DoP may wish to revive its own idea of appointing an Ombudsman with quasi-judicial power for this purpose.

State FDAs should play an important role as detecting, investigating and prosecuting agency also for pharma marketing malpractices.

DoP website should provide comprehensive details of all punitive action taken against each erring company for this purpose.

A compliance certificate from the Managing Directors of the respective companies to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) stating that the all sales and marketing expenditures computed for Corporate tax payments are in total conformity with the the UCPMP. Any false declaration should attract serious and exemplary penal consequences.

What would the pharma companies gain?

I would expect at least the following to happen:

From the sales and marketing perspective, this new ball game would help establish a level playing field for all the pharma players, to a great extent.

Expenditure on sales and marketing would obviously come down sharply, improving product margins significantly, even if a part of this saving is passed on to patients in form of price reductions.

Without the allurement of freebies, competitive and innovative brand marketing acumen of the pharma companies would get honed, which would ultimately emerge as the key differentiating factor for the balance of performance to tilt either towards success or failure.

Consequently, quality, depth and dimension of marketing inputs for a decisive competitive edge would me more cerebral and distinct in nature, unlike the marketing cacophony in today’s era of freebies.

With greater available resources, it would help the pharma players focusing more on talent, skill and technology development to attain sustainable business excellence.

The key focus would necessarily shift from ‘buying prescriptions’ to ‘creating prescriptions’ with value based innovative communication of bundled products and services.

Conclusion:

Relying solely on voluntary compliance of ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, in my view, would not work in India, just as it has not worked even in the developed countries of the world.

This is primarily because, India does not currently have any serious deterrents in this area, including specific legal and regulatory systems, to limit pharma marketing malpractices, unlike many other developed nations of the world.

If the media speculation of DoP’s making the UCPMP mandatory is right, I would reckon, despite its intriguing circular of December 12, 2014, it is a courageous step in the right direction.

Although coming in form of a bitter pill, it would help the Indian pharma players embracing a long awaited and mandatory course correction for not just doing things right, but more importantly doing right things.

I would expect its longer term effect to be ‘win-win’ for all – pharmaceutical industry in India, the Government and above all the patients…well…of course, barring the regular recipients of freebies of all types, forms, kinds, nature and value.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Posted on October 27, 2014 by Tapan Ray

A new class and an aggressive drug-pricing trend is now evolving in the global pharmaceutical industry, exerting huge financial pressure on the patients and payers, including governments, especially, in the developed nations of the world.

Another aspect of this issue I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts of August 18, 2014 titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments.”

Let me start my deliberation today by citing an example. According to 2013 Drug Trend Report of the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the United States will spend 1,800 percent more on Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) medications by 2016 than it did last year. This is largely attributed to new Hepatitis C cure with Sovaldi of Gilead, priced at Rs 61,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing around Rs. Million 5.10 (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a pill.

In a Press Release, Express Scripts stated, “Never before has a drug been priced this high to treat a patient population this large, and the resulting costs will be unsustainable for our country…The burden will fall upon individual patients, state and federal governments, and payers who will have to balance access and affordability in a way they never have had to before.”

The magnitude of impact – an example:

According to another report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid of the US, the cost to treat all Americans, who have hepatitis C, with Sovaldi would cost US$227 billion, whereas it currently costs America US$260 billion a year for all drugs bought in the country. According to Express Scripts, no major therapy class has experienced such a hefty increase in spending over the last 21 years.

This gives us a feel of the net impact of the evolving new aggressive drug pricing strategy on the lives of the patients and payers of one of the richest nations of the world.

Three critical parts of the evolving pricing strategy:

In an era, when new drug pricing has come under great scrutiny of the stakeholders globally, this strategy seems to have three critical components as follows:

1. Strategy for the developed countries: Set the launch price as high as possible and generate maximum profit faster from wealthy minority who can afford to pay for the drug.

It helps establishing the base price of the product globally, despite all hue and cries, maintaining a very healthy top and bottom line business performance, amidst ‘Wall Street cheering’.

Implementing this strategy meticulously and with precision, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014. That too, in the midst of huge global concerns on alleged ‘profiteering’ with an exorbitantly priced HCV drug.

At that time, the company noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi, which means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion was generated just from the treatment of 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug benefited less than one percent of the total number of HCV patients, despite clocking a mind-boggling turnover and profit.

2. Strategy for the developing countries: Create a favorable optic for the stakeholders by lowering the drug price significantly, in percentage term from its base price, earning still a decent profit. However, in reality the discounted price would continue to remain high for a very large number of patients.

Gilead is now in the process of implementing this strategy for 80 developing countries. For these markets, it has already announced a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000.

If we convert the discounted treatment cost, it comes down to around Rs. 55,000 from the base price of around Rs. Million 5.10. This discounted price, which is significantly less than the base price of the drug, creates an extremely favorable optic. No one discusses how many Hepatitis C patients would be able to afford even Rs. 55,000, say for example in a country like India? Thus, setting a high base price in the developed market for a new drug could make many in the developing world perceive that the treatment cost of Rs. 55,000 is very reasonable for majority of not so privileged patients.

Under the second strategy, Gilead has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world.

A ‘Financial Times’ report, also states, “At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe.”

If other global pharma companies also follow this differential strategy, one for the developed markets and the other for the developing markets, it could be a masterstroke for the Big Pharma. This would help address the criticism that its constituents are facing today for ‘obscene’ pricing of important new life saving drugs, as they target mostly the creamy layer of the society for business performance.

However, many in the United States are also articulating that they understand, the countries getting steep discounts from Gilead have high levels of poverty, but clearly points out that the disease affects lower-income patients in America, as well. To substantiate the point, they reiterate, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) about 150 million people worldwide have HCV, out of which around 2.7 million HCV diagnosed people live in the US. They highlight that currently even less than 25 percent of Americans with chronic HCV have had or are receiving treatment. In Europe, just 3.5 percent of patients of are being treated.

Thus, keeping in view of the increasing number of voices in the developed countries against abnormally high prices of the new drugs, the moot questions that come up are as follows:

Is Strategy 1 sustainable for the developed markets?
If not, would Strategy 2 for the developing market could ever be broader based?

3. Strategy for Voluntary License (VL) in those countries, where grant of product patent is doubtful.

Thanks to the Indian patent regime, global companies would possibly consider following this route for all those products that may not be able to pass the ‘Acid Test’ of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead has followed this route for Sovaldi and before that for tenofovir (Viread).

In this context, it is worth noting that the Indian patent office has not recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market, just yet. Thus, following this strategy Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

However, the final decision of the Indian Patent Office on the patent grant for Sovaldi holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, VL based game plan of the global pharma majors.

The new trend:

In April 2014, Merck and Co. announced that its two HCV drug candidates had a 98 percent cure rate in a mid-stage trial. In addition, AbbVie is also expected to launch a high-end hepatitis C drug within the next year. The prices for these drugs are yet to be announced.

However, a new report of October 2014 states that USFDA has approved this month a new drug named Harmony, a ledipasvir/sofosbuvir combo formulation, again from Gilead for curative treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in adults. Harmony, which is called the son of Sovaldi, would cost a hopping US$ 94,500 for a 12-week regimen, as against US$ 84,000 for Sovaldi.

Hence, I reckon, similar aggressive pricing strategy for new drugs would gain momentum in the coming years and at the same time.

Is this pricing model sustainable?

Though Gilead pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India, the question that comes up yet again, whether the new model is sustainable for various reasons as mentioned above or would it be followed by majority of the global drug innovators?

In a situation like this, what then could be a sustainable solution in India?

The desirable pathway:

A transparent government mechanism for patented drugs pricing, as followed by many countries in the world, would be quite meaningful in India. The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India could play a constructive role in this area, as already provided in the Drug Policy 2012 of the country.

This measure assumes greater urgency, as the astronomical prices of patented drugs, especially for life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, have become a subject of great concern in India too, just as it has become a critical issue across the world.

DoP is in inactive mode:

It is not difficult to fathom that CL for all patented life-saving drugs would not be a sustainable measure for all time to come. Thus, the need for a robust mechanism of price negotiation for patented drugs was highlighted in the Drug Policy 2012.

The DoP first took up the issue for consideration in 2007 by forming a committee. After about six years from that date, the committee produced a contentious report, which had hardly any takers.

Today, despite the new government’s initiative to inject requisite energy within the bureaucracy, administrative lethargy and lack of sense of urgency still lingers with the DoP, impeding progress in this important subject any further.

Intense lobbying on this issue by vested interests from across the world has further pushed the envelope in the back burner. Recent report indicates, the envelope has since been retrieved for a fresh look with fresh eyes, as a new minister is now on the saddle of the department.

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was also formed by the DoP under the chairmanship of one of its Joint Secretaries, to suggest a mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country. The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Unfortunately, nothing tangible has been made known to the stakeholders on this matter, just yet. I sincerely hope that the new government expedites the process now.

Three critical factors to consider:

While arriving at the patented products price in India, three critical factors should be made note of, as follows:

The discussion should start with the prices adjusted on the Purchasing Power Parity factor for India.
Any price must have a direct relationship with the per capita income of the population of the country.
Details of other public healthcare measures that the government would undertake, by increasing its healthcare spends as a percentage of GDP, should also be clearly articulated.

Conclusion:

The evolving and aggressive new product-pricing trend has three following clearly identifiable facets:

One, the base price of the drugs would be established at a very high level to help increase both the turnover and profit of the companies significantly and quickly. This measure would consequently make the drug bills of the developed world even more expensive, which could limit healthcare access wherever co-payment exists or the expenditures are Out of Pocket (OoP) in nature.

Two, against intense global criticism for aggressive drug pricing strategy, to create a favorable optic, the concerned companies would launch these products at a deep discount on the base price in the developing world. However, the net price would still remain high in absolute terms, considering per capita income in those countries.

Three, for many of these new products, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents 2005 would place India at an advantage. Thus, in absence of evergreening type of product patents, to salvage the situation, many of these companies would prefer to offer Voluntary License (VL) to Indian generic manufacturers under specific terms and conditions. However, such VL may not have any potential value, if IPO refuses to grant patents to those products, which would fall under the above section. In that case, generic competition would further bring down the prices.

No doubt, the above pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India. However, the question that comes up, whether the new model is sustainable or would be followed by majority of the global drug innovators in the same way? Considering all these, it does not seem to be the most desirable situation. Moreover, the current patent regime is a deterrent mostly to evergreening of patents.

Thus, the Indian government should play a more specific and proactive role in this game by first putting in place and then effectively implementing a country specific mechanism to tame the spiraling patented drug prices in India, for the interest of patients.

The world has taken serious note of this fast evolving aggressive new drug-pricing trend, as different countries are in the process of addressing the issue in various country-specific ways. Unfortunately, the DoP still remains in a deep slumber, having failed once to half-heartedly put a clumsy mechanism in place to address the issue.

As India is now under a new political regime, let us sincerely hope, the new minister in charge succeeds to make it happen, sooner, reducing vulnerability of a vast majority of patients during many life threatening ailments and…of course, in tandem, ensuring justifiable profit margin for the innovator drug companies…the evolving aggressive new drug pricing trend notwithstanding.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Voluntary

UCPMP: Vacillating Between ‘The Perfect’ And ‘The Real’ World?

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

Is The Department of Pharmaceuticals On The Same Page As The Prime Minister?

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

‘Indian Drug Control World’s Weakest: Pharma Trade Bodies Working At Cross Purposes’

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

Voluntary Practice Alone of Pharma Marketing Code, Has Never Worked…Anywhere

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?