Tag Archives: World

In VUCA World: Changing Dynamics of Prescription Generation Process

Posted on by
Reply

The acronym VUCA is often being used to emphasize upon the Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity in various situations. The term has been derived from military vocabulary and is being used since 1990s in the business management parlance. VUCA is also considered as a practical code for awareness and readiness.

I find all the elements of VUCA playing an active role in the prescription demand generation space too, as it is based on various assumptions of what will work and what won’t in a fast changing pharmaceuticals business environment. 

The interplay:

Primary interplay in the sustainable prescription demand generation process of today’s digitally empowered VUCA environment, I reckon, could be as follows:

  • Volatility: Fast changing dynamics of medical communication with interfaces made of emerging modern technological tools carrying high risks of rapid obsolescence.
  • Uncertainty: Lack of predictability in assessing outcomes of increasingly expensive product detailing inputs, coupled with too many surprise elements popping-up in the environment almost from nowhere and more frequently.
  • Complexity: Multi-factorial Doctor-Medical Representative (MR) interactions, which get even more complicated with increasing time constraints for effective product detailing to take place.
  • Ambiguity: Difficult to fathom changing needs of the doctors/payors, leading to increasing cause-and-effect confusion by the pharma marketing strategy planners.

Keeping these in view, today I shall deliberate on the ‘Criticality of Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ for sustainable prescription demand generation in a VUCA environment.

The key influencer – a new study:

A research study published in June 2013, in the ‘American Heart Journal (AHJ)’ establishes that the interaction between physicians and MRs, though essential for  improvement of medical care, is indeed complex. This is mainly because of the apprehension that conflict of interests may affect the doctors’ prescription decision-making process. 

However, the fact comes out, the doctors tend to prescribe more of expensive medical products after interacting with MRs from the concerned manufacturing companies, which, in turn, raises the treatment costs for patients.

Study established MRs influence prescription decision:

This particular AHJ study compared the use of Bare-Metal Stents, Drug-Eluting Stents (DES), and Balloon Catheters according to company presence in the hospital. It concluded that MR presence was associated with increased use of the concerned company’s stents during percutaneous coronary interventions. The effect was more pronounced on the use of DES, and resulted in higher procedural cost of US$ 250 per patient.

In this particular study, it was found that DESs were used in about 56 percent of the cases, when the MRs concerned were at the hospital, against 51 percent when they weren’t there.

Interestingly on such interactions between the MRs and the drug/devices industry two opposite viewpoints emerge.

‘MR-Doctor interaction important‘ – Industry:

Quoting the Associate General Counsel and Director of Legal and Medical Affairs at the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical technology trade association, Reuters reported, “interactions between sales representatives and doctors benefit patients and are supported by professional medical organizations.”

‘MR interaction should not influence prescription decision’ – Doctors:

In the same report, the study’s lead author was quoted saying, “We need to evaluate carefully any interactions with medical industry to ensure that we minimize an effect on our decision making process.”

The bottom-line, though the debate continues:

This debate will keep continuing even in the years ahead. Be that as it may, the key fact that emerges out of the above study is, MRs do play a critical role in the prescription decision-making process of the doctors, especially for expensive medical products . Consequently, the pharmaceutical companies will prefer maintaining such ‘influencing’ roles of MRs to boost revenues of their respective brands.

This process assumes even greater importance in a VUCA world, as situation specific more frequent human interventions, strongly backed by state of art technological supports, would need to be effectively deployed for generation of sustainable prescription demand to excel in business.

The X-Factor:

However, one of the most challenging issues even in a VUCA situation is that pharma players continue and will continue to target the same sets of prolific prescribers for any given class of products in pursuit of success. As a result, time being so limited, very often even after waiting for hours MRs may not be able to meet the key prescribers.

Moreover, as and when the meeting takes place, it may well get restricted to just a very brief discussion due to the X Factor – paucity of the doctors’ time. Thus, delivering an effective product message in such a short time becomes increasingly challenging. Further, the difficulty in arresting un-interrupted attention of the busy practitioners due to X-Factor when they are with patients, compounds the problem.

Pivotal role of state of art technological tools:

The effectiveness of connection between respective brands of different drug makers and the doctors can be greatly facilitated with the application of state of art technology and modern internet based tools in varying proportions, as the sales and marketing communication strategy would dictate.

This area is emerging as a crafty game, which calls for wide-scale application of analytics.

Traditional strategies not enough:

In a VUCA world, while traditional face-to-face product detailing to doctors may continue to be the primary means for prescription demand generation, experimentation with a good number of new Internet based initiatives has already been started, as I discussed in my earlier article.

Hence, the concepts of digital marketing and e-detailing are gaining ground fast. Such initiatives of augmented digital communication of key marketing messages to doctors, would also help driving the key customers’ traffic to respective product Websites of the concerned companies for more detailed and convincing medical treatment solutions, as and when required by the busy doctors.

Types of digital interventions:

These digital interventions may include:

  • Highly targeted brand specific e-mailing responding to pre-identified needs of individual doctors
  • Sample ordering as per requirements of doctors
  • Live online product presentations at a time convenient to individual doctors
  • Quick and need-based problem solution centric online chats 24×7
  • Strategic usage of social media, backed by a robust pre-decided key output measuring matrix

However, the mix of each of these digital applications will need to be carefully worked out as robust supporting measures to key prescription demand generation activities, spearheaded by the MRs. 

MRs to remain as ‘Spearheads’:

In my view, MRs would still remain the frontline force in the emerging world (dis)order, may be lesser in number, for sustainable prescription demand generation process. Therefore, there is an urgent need to take them on board upfront and train suitably to make the modern digital interfaces successful as powerful differentiating support tools.

Technology based training on digital marketing and e-detailing as empowering initiatives, demonstrating tangible benefits that such high tech-interventions can offer in the overall sales performance of MRs, would play a critical role. Such efforts would, in turn, immensely help making digital augmentation strategies for pharma detailing successful, in the long run.

MR involvement is critical:

In my view, to be successful in a VUCA environment with all these endeavors, however tech-intensives those may be, there will be a critical need to make the MRs understand and learn the process. In tandem, it is equally important to actively engage them in the execution of the integrated medical communication strategy of the concerned companies.

Keeping this perspective in mind, I guess, it will be quite apt to quote Ben Franklyn, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, scientist, musician, inventor and economist, all in one, who once wrote:

“Tell me and I forget, 

 Teach me and I remember,

 Involve me and I learn”

Thus, MRs would continue to have a critical role to play in the demand generation process for prescription medicines. However, they must be properly trained to be able to provide the types of knowledge and information that the doctors may not have ready access from elsewhere.

The entire process would, at the same time, require massive technological interventions, not incremental in nature but radical in scope and dimensions, and at a much wider scale than what we have been attempting today.

Challenges in India:

The very concept of VUCA in the changing dynamics of sustainable prescription demand generation, brings to the fore the issue of quality of MRs in India.

Currently there is a wide, both inter and intra company, variation in the educational qualifications, relevant product and disease area knowledge, professional conduct and ethical standards between MRs in our country.

Employability of MR in a VUCA world:

Just when we talk about augmented digital interfaces in medical communications, there exists a huge challenge in the country to strike a right balance between the level/quality of sales pitch generated by the MRs for a brand.

At times, many of them may not be properly armed with requisite scientific knowledge, and the basic norms of professional conduct/ ethical standards, while rendering their services.

They may not also be able to handle the sophisticated technological tools with quick application of minds. Hence, the subject of employability of MR in a VUCA world needs to be addressed afresh in India.

‘One size fits all’ strategies:

To make it happen, the pharmaceutical players would require to jettison, ‘one size fits all’ types of strategies in a VUCA world.

In tandem, pharma marketing strategists will need to be intimately conversant with a relatively difficult process of cerebral gymnastics to help formulating individual key prescriber-centric communication strategies, where MRs can play a key role with optimal digital interventions.

This is possible, if supported by the respective employers creating an environment of empowerment, backed by requisite product training, technological tools, modern behavioral inputs and above all by making investments to create of a large sustainable emotional capital for longer term  business excellence.

Conclusion:

All the elements of VUCA would keep playing very critical roles in sustainable prescription demand generation process in the years to come, more than ever before.

There is a critical need to understand the interplay between each of these dynamics on an ongoing basis to make strategic modifications quickly, whenever required. This is important, as the prowess to introduce right changes at right times will differentiate men from the boys in this ultimate ball game of the pharma industry. 

To succeed in a VUCA environment, pharmaceutical companies may choose to predominantly focus on harnessing their technological expertise. 

However, to face the waves of virtually unpredictable continuous change, only technology based efforts, I reckon, are less likely to fructify. Unless, these high- tech interventions are spearheaded by time-specific fast enough and intelligent skilled human responses in form of MRs. 

Having said that, it would be foolhardy to even think of completely taming VUCA with whatever human and technological wherewithal that any pharma player may be able to garner to achieve its goals. It is, in fact, a matter of relativity in managing VUCA in a given situation at a given time. 

Thus I believe, there is, on the contrary, a need to leverage a VUCA environment, for creation of an ‘Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ in the product detailing process with a high sense of urgency. This would be critical to gain cutting edge advantages for generation of increased prescription demand in a sustainable way.

For the pharmaceutical marketing strategists, this new ball game would obviously not be a piece of cake either, as the key success factors would involve the right mindset of first unlearning and then relearning the process on an ongoing basis, virtually in all time to come

With this perspective, I conclude by quoting the famous American writer and futurist Alvin Toffler, who once said,

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

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.

 

Balancing IPR with Public Health Interest: Brickbats, Power Play and Bouquets

Posted on by
Reply

It is now a widely accepted dictum that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially pharma patents, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

In line with this thinking, for quite sometime a raging global debate has brought to the fore that there are quite a large number of patents on drug variants that offer not very significant value to the patients over the mother molecules, yet as expensive, if not more than the original ones. In common parlance these types of inventions are considered as ‘trivial incremental innovations’ and described as attempts to ‘evergreening’ the patents.

The terminology ‘evergreening‘ usually ‘refers to a strategy employed by many pharmaceutical companies to extend their market monopoly by slightly changing the existing molecules and obtaining new patents to continue to enjoy market exclusivity and pricing freedom, which otherwise would not have been possible.

Path breaking or jaw-drooping ‘W-O-W’ types of innovations are not so many. Thus most of the patented drugs launched globally over the last several decades are indeed some sort of ‘me-too drugs’ and generally considered as ‘low hanging fruits’ of R&D, not being able to offer significantly greater value to patients than already exiting ones. Many of these drugs have also achieved blockbuster status for the concerned companies, backed by high voltage marketing over a reasonably long period of time. It is understandable, therefore, that from pure business perspective why serious global efforts are being made to push the same contentious system in India too.

Example of some of these molecules (not necessarily in the written order), are as follows:

  • Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)
  • Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)
  • Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

However, pharmaceutical companies do argue that such ‘incremental innovations’ are the bedrock for growth of the pharmaceutical industry and are essential to continue to fund pharmaceutical research and development.

An interesting paper:

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental Patenting and Compulsory Licensing” by Carlos M. Correa argued as follows:

  • Despite decline in the discovery of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) for pharmaceutical use, there has been significant proliferation of patents on products and processes that cover minor, incremental innovations.
  • A study conducted in five developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India and South Africa has:
  1. Evidenced a significant proliferation of ‘ever-greening’ pharmaceutical patents that    can block generic competition and thereby limit patients’ access to medicines.
  2. Found that both the nature of pharmaceutical learning and innovation and the interest of public health are best served in a framework where rigorous standards of inventive step are used to grant patents.
  3. Suggested that with the application of well-defined patentability standards, governments could avoid spending the political capital necessary to grant and sustain compulsory licenses/government use.
  4. Commented, if patent applications were correctly scrutinized, there would be no need to have recourse to CL measures.

A remarkable similarity with the Indian Patents Act:

The findings of the above study have a striking similarity with the Indian Patents Act. As per this Act, to be eligible for grant of patents in India, the pharmaceutical products must pass the ‘two-step’ acid test of:

  • Following the inventive step: Defined under Section 2(ja) of the Patents Act as follows:

“Inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

  • Passing scrutiny of Section 3(d) of the law: It categorically states, inventions that are a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable.

Supreme Court of India clarifies it:

The Honorable Supreme Court of India in page 90 of its its landmark Glivec judgement has clearly pronounced that all ‘incremental innovations’ may not be trivial or frivolous in nature. However, only those ‘incremental innovations’, which will satisfy the requirements of both the above Sections of the Act, wherever applicable, will be eligible for grant of patents in India. 

An opposite view:

Another paper presents a different view altogether. It states that incremental improvements on existing drugs have great relevance to overall increases in the quality of healthcare.

With the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, such drugs have helped the physicians to treat diverse group of patients. They also represent advances in safety, efficacy along with newer dosing options significantly increasing patient compliance.

The paper claims that ‘even from an economic standpoint, expanding drug classes represent the possibility of lower drug prices as competition between manufacturers is increased’.  It states that any policy aimed at curbing incremental innovation will ultimately lead to a reduction in the overall quality of existing drug classes and may ultimately curb the creation of novel drugs.

Pricing:

Experts, on the other hand, argue, if patents are granted to such ‘incremental innovations’ at all, their prices need to be determined by quantifying ‘Incremental Value’ that patients will derive out of these inventions as compared to the generic versions of respective original molecules.

Use of such drugs may lead to wasteful expenditure:

A large majority of stakeholders also highlight, though many of such drugs will have cheaper or generic alternatives, physicians are persuaded by the pharma players to prescribe higher cost patented medicines with the help of expensive avoidable marketing tools, leading to wasteful expenditure for all. The issue of affordability for these drugs is also being raised, especially, in the Indian context.

  • The ‘2012 Express Scripts Canada Drug Trend Report’ unfolded that the use of higher-cost medications without offering additional patient benefits resulted in waste of $3.9 billion annually in Canada.
  • Another recent Geneva-based study concluded as follows:

“Evergreening strategies for follow-on drugs contribute to overall healthcare costs. It also implies that policies that encourage prescription of generic drugs could induce saving on healthcare expenditure. Healthcare providers and policymakers should be aware of the impact of evergreening strategies on overall healthcare costs.”

  • Some other studies reportedly revealed, “Medicines sold in France are 30 times more expensive than what it costs pharmaceutical companies pay to manufacture them.” Industry observers opine, if that is happening in France what about India? Quoting experts the same report comments, “If pharmaceutical companies are forced to follow moral and human values, it could save the tax payer at least 10 billion euros, an amount which could fill up the deficit of the national health care system.”
  • Yet another article questioned, “What if a physician is paid speaking or consulting fees by a drug maker and then prescribes its medicine, even if there is no added benefit compared with cheaper alternatives?”

More debate:

According to a paper titled, ‘Patented Drug Extension Strategies on Healthcare Spending: A Cost-Evaluation Analysis’ published by PLOS Medicine, European public health experts estimate that pharmaceutical companies have developed “evergreening” strategies to compete with generic medication after patent termination. These are usually slightly modified versions of the existing drugs.

Following are some brands, which were taken as examples for evergreening:

S.No.

Evergreen

Medical Condition

Original Brand

1.

 Levocetirizine (Vozet) Allergies Cetirizine (Zyrtec)

2.

 Escitalopram (Lexapro) Depression Citalopram (Celexa)

3.

 Esomeprazole (Nexium) Acid reflux Omeprazole (Prilosec)

4.

 Desloratadine (Clarinex) Allergies Loratadine (Claritan)

5.

 Zolpidem Extended Release (Ambien CR) Insomnia Zolpidem (Ambien)

6.

 Pregabalin (Lyrica) Seizures Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Source: Medical Daily, June 4, 2013

In this study, the researchers calculated that evergreening – where pharmaceutical companies slightly modify a drug molecule to extend its patent, had cost an extra 30 million euros to the healthcare system in Geneva between 2000 and 2008. The authors argue that ‘evergreening’ strategies, “more euphemistically called as ‘life cycle management’ are sometimes questionable benefit to society.”

As the paper highlights, in this scenario the companies concerned rely on brand equity of the original molecule with newer and more innovative marketing campaigns to generate more prescriptions and incurring in that process expenses nearly twice as much on marketing than on research and development.

Brickbats:

In this context, recently a lawmaker rom America reportedly almost lambasted India as follows:

“I’m very concerned with the deterioration in the environment for protection of US intellectual property rights and innovation in India. The government of India continues to take actions that make it very difficult for US innovative pharmaceutical companies to secure and enforce their patents in India.“ 

On this, the Indian experts comment, if the situation is so bad in India, why doesn’t  America get this dispute sorted out by lodging a formal complaint against India in the WTO, just as what India contemplated to do, when consignments of generic drugs of Indian manufacturers were confiscated at the European ports, alleging those are counterfeit medicines.

Yet another recent news item highlighted a “concerted effort, which involves letters from US corporations and business groups to the president, testimony by Obama administration officials before Congress, and lawmakers’ own critiques, came ahead of US secretary of state John Kerry’s trip to India later this month (has already taken place by now) for the annual strategic dialogue, which will precede Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington DC in September.”

The report stated, the above letter complained that over the last year, “courts and policymakers in India have engaged in a persistent pattern of discrimination designed to benefit India’s business community at the expense of American jobs … Administrative and court rulings have repeatedly ignored internationally recognized rights — imposing arbitrary marketing restrictions on medical devices and denying, breaking, or revoking patents for nearly a dozen lifesaving medications.” 


At a recent Congressional hearing of the United States, a Congressman reportedly expressed his anger and called for taking actions against India by saying,

“Like all of you, my blood boils, when I hear that India is revoking and denying patents and granting compulsory licenses for cancer treatments or adopting local content requirements.”

Indian experts respond to these allegations by saying, patent disputes, patent challenges, revocation of patents, compulsory licensing etc. are all following a well-articulated judicial process of the country, where Indian government has hardly any role to play or intervene. American government and lawmakers are also expected to respect the rule of law in all such cases instead of trying to denigrate the Indian system.

The Power Play:

This short video clipping captures the Power Play in America on this matter.

The Government of India responds:

Ministry of Commerce and Industries of India reportedly countered the allegations of the United States over patents to the US Trade Representive arguing that the Indian IPR regime is fully TRIPS-compliant and Indian Patents Act “encourages genuine innovation by discouraging trivial, frivolous innovation, which leads to evergreening”.

Countries adopting the Indian model:

The above report also highlighted as follows:

  • Argentina has issued guidelines to reject ‘frivolous’ patents.
  • Peru, Columbia, other South American countries have placed curbs.
  • Philippines has similar provisions.
  • Australia is contemplating making the law tougher.

Revised report of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee:

Even the revised (March 2009) ‘Report of the Technical Expert Group (TEG) on Patent Law Issues’, the TEG, chaired by the well-known scientist Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, in point number 5.30 of their report recommended as follows:

“Every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘evergreening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product.  The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits.  Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Bouquets:

As stated above, many experts across the world believe, the criticism that Section 3 (d) is not TRIPS Agreement compliant is unfounded, as no such complaint has been lodged with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in this matter, thus far. The safeguards provided in the patent law of India will help the country to avoid similar issues now being faced by many countries. Importantly, neither does the section 3(d) stop all ‘incremental innovations’ in India.

Quoting a special adviser for health and development at South Centre, a think tank based in Geneva, Switzerland, a recent report indicated, “Many developing countries will follow India’s example to protect the rights of their populations to have access to essential medicines”.

Yet another report quoting an expert articulates, “India’s top court’s decision affirms India’s position and policy on defining how it defines inventions from a patenting point of view for its development needs. It challenges the patenting standards and practices of the developed countries which are the ones really in much need of reform.”

The Honorable Supreme Court in its Glivec judgment has also confirmed that such safeguard provisions in the statute are expected to withstand the test of time to protect public health interest in India and do not introduce any form of unreasonable restrictions on patentability of drug inventions.

Conclusion:

Not withstanding the report of the US-India Business Council (USIBC) titled ‘The Value of Incremental Innovation: Benefits for Indian Patients and Indian Business’, arguing for abolition of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act to pave the way for patentability for all types of incremental innovations in pharmaceuticals, realistically it appears extremely challenging.

As the paper quoted first in this article suggests, denial of patents for inventions of dubious value extending effective patent period through additional patents, is a significant safeguard to protect public health interest. This statutory provision will also pave the way for quick introduction of generics on expiry of the original patent.

Taking all these developments into active consideration, keen industry watchers do believe, for every effort towards balancing IPR with Public Health Interest, both brickbats and bouquets will continue to be showered in varying proportion together with the mounting pressure of power play, especially from the developed world and still for some more time.

However, in India this critical balancing factor seems to have taken its root not just deep and strong, but in all probabilities - both politically and realistically, the law is now virtually irreversible, come what may.

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.

 

 

“New drug prices are Astronomical, Unsustainable and Immoral” – Anatomy of Unique Protests

Posted on by
Reply

Yes. The quoted sentiment captured in the headline was reportedly voiced recently by many cancer specialists, including researchers and that too in the heartland of pharmaceutical innovation of the world– the United States of America.

These specialist doctors argued:

“High prices of a medicine to keep someone alive is profiteering, akin to jacking up prices of essential goods after a natural disaster”

Thus, not just in India, high prices of new drugs have started prompting large-scale protests in various types and forms across the world. This time the above unique protest assumed an extra-ordinary dimension, with the eye of the storm being in America.

The news item highlighted quite a different type of public protest by the top doctors, originated at a major cancer center located in New York and actively supported by over 120 influential cancer specialists from more than 15 countries spanning across five continents. These crusaders, though reportedly are working in favor of a healthy pharmaceutical industry, do think, especially the cancer drug prices are beyond the reach of many.

About 30 of these doctors hail from the United States and work closely, as mentioned earlier, with pharmaceutical companies engaged in R&D, including clinical trials.

As the cost of many life saving cancer drugs are now exceeding US$ 100,00 per year, all these doctors and researchers involved in the patients’ fights against cancer, are now playing a pivotal role in resisting such high drug prices vigorously.

Examples of astonishingly high drug prices:

In the area of treating rare diseases, the situation in every sense is mind-boggling. When a drug to treat such ailments comes with a price tag of over US$ 400,000 just for a year’s treatment, it is indeed astonishingly high by any standard. Some protestors even described the cost of these drugs as ‘obvious highway robbery’ in the guise of high R&D cost, while some others would continue to wonder as to why is not there a regulatory intervention for the same?

Here below are the top 10 most expensive drugs of the world…and just hold your breath:

World’s Most Expensive Medicines

No. Name Disease

Price US$ /Year
1. ACTH Infantile spasm

13,800,00
2. Elaprase Hunter Syndrome

657,000
3. Soliris Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria

409,500
4. Nagalazyme Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome

375,000
5. Folotyn T-Cell Lymphoma

360,000
6. Cinryze Hereditary Angioedema

350,000
7. Myozyme Pompe

300,000
8. Arcalyst Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome

250,000
9. Ceredase / Cerezyme Gaucher Disease

200,000
10. Fabrazyme Fabry Disease

200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is protests against such ‘immoral pricing’ have started mounting.

Protests against high drug prices for rare diseases:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Yet another protest prompted cancer drug price reduction by half:

Another report highlights that last year physicians at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York refused to use a new colon cancer drug ‘as it was twice as expensive as another drug without being better’.

After this protest, in an unusual move, the manufacturer of this colon cancer drug had cut its price by half.

Even developed countries with low out of pocket expenditure can’t sustain such high prices:

With over one million new cancer cases reportedly coming up every year in India, there is an urgent need for the intervention of the Government in this area, especially for poor and the middleclass population of the country.

Further, it is worth noting that in countries like India, where out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare is very high, as public health system is grossly inadequate, such ‘astronomical prices’ will perhaps mentally knock-down many patients directly, well before they actually die.

That said, even in those countries where out-of-pocket expenditure towards healthcare is nil or very low, respective health systems, by and large, be it public or run by other payors, will still require paying for these high cost drugs, making the systems unsustainable.

Moreover, patients on assistance program of the pharmaceutical companies, reportedly also complain that these ‘Patient Access Programs’ are always not quite user friendly.

Protests spreading beyond cancer and rare disease treatment:

The concern for high drug prices is now spreading across many other serious disease areas, much beyond cancer. It has been reported that the issue of drug prices for various other disease areas was discussed in October 2012 at the Cowen Therapeutic Conference in New York. Many doctors in this conference felt that the drugs with no significant benefit over the existing therapy should not be included in the hospital formulary.

Pressure on diabetic and cardiac drug prices:

Various Governments within the European Union (EU) are now reportedly exerting similar pressures to reduce the costs of drugs used for the treatment of diabetes and cardiac disorders. These measures are now reportedly ‘putting the brakes on an US$ 86 billion sector of the pharmaceutical industry that’s been expanding twice as fast as the market as a whole’.

It is worth noting that each nation within EU is responsible for deciding the price of a new drug, though the European Commission approves drugs for all 27 members of the EU.

Flip side of the story – Commendable initiatives of some global companies:

There is another side of the story too. To address such situation some global companies reportedly are increasing drug donations, reinvesting profits in developing countries and adopting to a more flexible approach to intellectual property related issues. However, as per media reports, there does not seem to be any unanimity within the global companies on country-specific new drug pricing issue, at least not just yet.

To encourage pharmaceutical companies to improve access to affordable drugs for a vast majority of population across the world, an independent initiative known as Access to medicine index ranks 20 largest companies of the world. This ranking is based on the efforts of these companies to improve access to medicine in developing countries.

As indicated by the World Health Organization (WHO), this Index covers 20 companies, 103 countries, and a broad range of drugs, including vaccines, diagnostic tests and other health-related technologies required for preventing, diagnosing and treating disease.

The index covers 33 diseases, including maternal conditions and neonatal infections. The top 10 companies in ‘Access to Medicine Index’ ranking for 2012 are as follows:

No. Company

Index
1. GlaxoSmithKline plc 3.8
2. Johnson & Johnson 3.6
3. Sanofi 3.2
4. Merck & Co. Inc. 3.1
5. Gilead Sciences 3.0
6. Novo Nordisk A/S 3.0
7. Novartis AG 2.9
8. Merck KGaA 2.5
9. Bayer AG 2.4
10. Roche Holding Ltd. 2.3

Source: http;//www.accesstomedicineindex.org/ranking

How high is really the high R&D cost?

A recent article published this month raises some interesting points on this subject, which I am quoting below:

  • No direct and transparent details are available from the industry for public scrutiny on the total cost of innovation.
  • What one does have access to are studies on the issue funded by pharmaceutical MNCs themselves.
  • For most NCEs, public-funded programs in the U.S largely invest in drug discovery.
  • In industry sponsored studies there is lack of transparency on the real costs of drug research and development.
  • Various tax benefits allowed under U.S. law are also ignored by industry studies.
  • Researching new drugs gives one Tax breaks to the extent of 50 per cent in the U.S. If one researches and markets an orphan drug for rare diseases, again, tax breaks are available to the tune of half the expenditure.

Further, a 2011 study by Donald W. Light and Rebecca Warburton published by the London School of Economics and Political Science indicates, “based on independent sources and reasonable arguments, one can conclude that R&D costs companies a median of US$ 43.4 million per new drug.”

It is interesting to note, the above cost estimate is a fraction of what is available from the industry source (over US$ 1.2 billion).

An interesting pricing model prescribed:

Another article recently published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) commented, while pharmaceutical companies reportedly spend billions on research, the actual cost of manufacturing a treatment (such as a pill) is minimal. This cost structure enables pricing flexibility.

The author suggests:

  • Adopt a smarter pricing model, where a company can charge the highest price that each customer is willing to pay.
  • To implement smarter pricing that saves more lives, and brings in more revenue, the pharmaceutical industry should create a straightforward grid that specifies the annual maximum a patient should pay out of pocket on drug expenses.
  • Key variables that determine this maximum include income, family size, and their other drug costs. Patients can submit this data to a third party agency to avail discounts based on these criteria.

However, implementability of this model, especially in the Indian scenario, seems to be challenging.

Conclusion:

Despite this gloom and doom, as ‘Access to Medicine Index 2012′ indicates, some pharmaceutical companies do want to become an integral part in finding out a solution to the access problem in general. Though, there are still many more miles to cover, some companies, though small in number, are demonstrably trying to improve access to health care in the developing countries of the world.

Rising prices of new drugs in general and for dreaded disease like cancer and other rare disorders in particular have now started reaching a crescendo, not just India, but in many other countries across the world and in various forms. Probably due to this reason, currently in Europe, regulators tend to be depending more and more in the concept of cost to efficacy ratios for new drugs.

It is interesting to note, the world is witnessing for the first time and that too in the developed world that a large number of specialist doctors are protesting against this trend, unitedly and with strong words.

The anatomy of initial phase of this groundswell, many would tend to believe, signals ushering in a new era of checks and balances to set right ‘astronomical, unsustainable and immoral new drug prices’ in the patients’ fights especially against dreaded diseases, the world over.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

 

A Force Multiplier: An “Armageddon”: A Contender for Supremacy in the Generic Pharma World

Posted on by
Reply

It is very important for any country to ensure access to most appropriate medicines for the patients as and when they require. In many disease areas such access can be remarkably improved through affordable generic drugs, which offer significant savings in cost for absence of monopolistic situation and intense competitive pressures.

In many countries like, India and China to further augment this process, the Government price control on essential medicines is already in force.

A paper titled, “Generic Medicines: Essential contributors to the long-term health of society” highlights the following facts on such drugs:

• Provide an affordable, gold standard medication for many major illnesses

• Allow access to medicines for a greater proportion of the population

• Stimulate healthy competition with the branded sector

• Deliver savings to national health bills

• Are high quality products

Generic companies also innovate:

The same paper also highlights, though innovation has been traditionally perceived as the domain of the research-based originator companies, generic medicine companies often spend significant sums on innovating and improving formulations, enhancing delivery systems and finding solutions to patient compliance issues.

It also says, the generics medicine industry spent 7 percent of revenues on R&D alone, in 2007 and created 150, 000 jobs only in the EU.

Continuous growth of generic drug industry is critical:

Taking all these factors into consideration, continuous growth of the generic drug industry is critical in ensuring broad access to medicines to the population of any country at an affordable price. Nothing else can achieve this objective.

In the developed countries like, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, UK and even USA, large volume of generic medicines are prescribed. Most of these countries have put in place appropriate regulations that facilitate market entry of generic drugs soon after patent expiry. All of them, by and large, encourage even more prescriptions of generic medicines.

Of course, there are many instances of deliberate attempts to slow down generic entry, which I shall deal with separately at some other time.

Quality perception for generic drugs:

In many countries the general perception of efficacy and safety standards of generic drugs is still not satisfactory. In many occasions, these are reportedly prompted by well orchestrated campaigns by interested private stakeholders in this area.

However, in markets, like the EU, Canada and the USA Governments do take public awareness measures to dispel such doubt. Unfortunately not enough similar initiatives have been taken in India with tangible results. The reason could probably lie in the existence of a powerful branded generic lobby in the country, unlike many other markets of the world.

The market:

A report of Frost & Sullivan titled, “Generic Pharmaceuticals Market – A Global Analysis” stated, the global generic pharmaceuticals market registered a revenue of US$ 135.85 billion in 2010 with a growth rate of 11 percent. The top eight global markets, namely the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Spain and Japan account for 80 percent of the total generics market. The United States will continue to remain the largest market in the world for generic pharmaceuticals in value terms.

It is estimated, the global generic drug market will grow to US$ 231.02 billion by 2017 with a CAGR 9.3 percent from 2010. The key growth drivers being:

  • Patent expiration of some blockbuster drugs
  • Entry of more biosimilars
  • High growth of emerging markets
  • Cost containment measures of governments and healthcare service providers in various countries

BRIC Countries strongly defend generic drugs:

Allegation of attacks on the generic industry by the patent holders of various drugs is also heard quite frequently.

It was reported that in a TRIPS Council meeting in mid 2012 held at the World Trade Organization (WTO), India, Brazil and China defended the right of access to cheap generic medicines by poor countries, strongly resisting attempts by the US, Japan and some other developed countries to club counterfeits or copies of patented drugs with fake or spurious ones.

They also argued that infringing intellectual property rights should not be confused with sub-standard products.

Many believe that because of the reported ‘clout of India, China and Brazil’ in the WTO, this attempt may not fructify despite such attempts.

India is surging ahead:      

It is interesting to note that out of top 10 fastest growing generic companies of the world, 4 are of Indian origin namely Glenmark, DRL, Sun Pharma and Taro (owned by Sun Pharma) and 3 definitely are home grown Indian companies, as follows:        

Top 10 Fastest Growing Generic Companies of the World:

No. Company Country Sales US$ Million Growth 2011 (%) Growth 2010 (%)
1. Sagent Pharmaceuticals USA 152 106 153
2. Perrigo USA 620 80 45
3. Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Japan 1300 79 25
4. Watson Pharmaceuticals USA 3320 46 38
5. Glenmark India 778 37 17
6. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) India 1480 34 15
7. Taro Pharmaceutical Israel 436 33 11
8. Sun Pharmaceuticals India 1650 29 52
9. Veropharm Russia 156 24 28
10. Polpharma Poland 580 22 20

(Source: FiercePharma)

India the pharmacy of the developing world:

According to a recent report India is now emerging as the ‘Pharmacy of the Developing World’, as it produces a large volume of high-quality, affordable generic medicines.

The study also highlights, “as a result of tough competition from the generic players of India, the price of first-line ARVs dropped from more than US$ 10,000 per person per year in 2000 to around $150 per person per year today. This significant price decrease has helped to facilitate the massive expansion of HIV treatment worldwide: more than 80 percent of the HIV medicines used to treat 6.6 million people in developing countries come from Indian producers, and 90 percent of pediatric HIV medicines are Indian-produced.”

Another study indicates, as a result of phenomenal success of the homegrown pharmaceutical companies:

  • 67 percent of medicines exports from India go to developing countries.
  • Main procurement agencies for developing countries’ health programs purchase their 
medicines in India, where there are quality products at low prices.
  • Approx. 50 percent of the essential medicines that UNICEF distributes in developing countries 
come from India.
  • 75-80 percent of all medicines distributed by the International Dispensary Association (IDA) to 
developing countries are manufactured in India. (IDA is a medical supplier operating on a 
not-for-profit basis for distribution of essential medicines to developing countries.)
  • In Zimbabwe, 75 percent of tenders for medicines for all public sector health facilities come from 
Indian manufacturers,
  • The state procurement agency in Lesotho, NDSO, states it buys nearly 95 percent of all ARVs 
from India.

This situation is going to further improve at a galloping pace in the years ahead with proper encouragement from the Government of India.

India tops the chart for ANDAs:

India, with its rapidly growing homegrown generic players, continues to top the Chart for Abbreviated New Drugs Applications (ANDAs) with USFDA by increasing its share year after year, as follows:

Year

Global

India

India’s Share %

2007

492

133

24.1

2008

483

143

27.9

2009

419

132

31.3

2010

419

142

34.0

2011

431

144

33.4

2012

476

178

37.4

Source: Pharmabiz, January 7, 2013 / US FDA

India tops the Chart in DMFs also:

Similarly, India continues to top the Chart with its Drug Master Files (DMF) for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), as follows:

No. Countries Filing Type II DMF
 1. India 2759
 2. USA 1323
 3. China 870
 4. Italy 644
 5. Japan 270
 6. Spain 268
 7. Germany 266
 8. France 170
 9. Israel 170
 10. Switzerland 136

Source: Pharma Times, August 2012

Moreover, domestic pharmaceutical companies have now between themselves, around 175 USFDA and approximately 90 UK-MHRA approved manufacturing units, to cater to the needs of high quality and affordable pharma products across the world. 

India not loosing its R&D Focus:

Discovery of new drugs being the bedrock for the pharmaceutical industry, domestic Indian companies are also not loosing focus on R&D activities. The New Chemical Entity (NCE) pipeline of the homegrown companies as on 2012 is as follows:

Piramal Healthcare 23
Suven Life Sciences 14
Zydus Cadila 11
Glenmark 8
Biocon 7
Torrent Pharma 6
Sun Pharma 5
Wockhardt 5
Ranbaxy 2
Dr Reddy’s Lab 2
Others 5

Source: Citeline Intelligence Services: Pharma R&D Annual Review 2013

Is the “west pressurizing India to change tack?”

In an interesting article published in ‘The Guardian’, the author observed that the western Pharmaceutical companies are putting health of world’s poor at risk. It commented that India makes cheap medicines for poor people around the world, but the EU, pharmaceutical firms and now the US are pressuring the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’ to change track. The same sentiment was echoed in another article published in Pharma Times.

However, the experts do feel that the Government of India, mostly due to intense public pressure, is well prepared to address any such situation, come what may. Thus, despite any retarding forces coming into play, the incessant march of the home grown pharmaceutical companies in search of excellence, especially in this space, is expected to continue even at a brisker pace.

The triggering factor:

Experts opine that the reason for excellence of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry, especially in the generic pharma landscape, is due to the amendment of the Indian Patents Act in 1970 allowing only process patents for drugs and pharmaceuticals.

The Government of India reportedly had taken such a path-breaking decision in the 70’s to lay the foundation of a vibrant domestic pharmaceutical industry capable of manufacturing low cost and high quality modern medicines for the health security of the country leveraging latest technology, including IT.

This decision was also directed towards creation of ‘drug security’ for the country as in the 70’s India was very heavily dependent on drug imports and the domestic pharmaceutical industry was virtually non-existent. 

Conclusion:

Paying kudos to the pharmaceutical ‘Crown Jewels’ of India, many industry watchers feel that the global pharma players are now keener than ever before to work with the domestic pharma industry, in various areas of business. This augurs well for all, as it will help creating a win-win situation to add further momentum to the growth of the pharmaceutical industry of India.

Be that as it may, taken in entirety and strengthened by its well-balanced patent laws, India  will continue to have a significant force multiplier effect to emerge as a global force to reckon with, particularly in this important space.

In tandem, with other significant cutting edges, as mentioned above, India is now well poised to be an “armageddon” – a contender of supremacy as a “pharmacy of the developing economies” despite selective allegations and  detrimental efforts by some vested interests.

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.

 

 

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on by
Reply

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d): 

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.” 

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an  injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

  • As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.
  • 60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

  1. Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
  2. Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
  3. Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
  4. Development of the R&D capacity and expertise
 of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
  5. Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
  6. Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that    over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor: 

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented,  “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young  India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Robust implementation of Biosimilar Guidelines could help India earn leadership status in ‘Biosimilar World’

Posted on by
Reply

Across the world, biologic drugs, in general, have a successful record in treating many life threatening and other complicated ailments. Expiration of product patents of the first major group of originators’ biologic molecules has led to the development of products that are designed to be ‘similar’ to the originators’ products, as it is virtually impossible to replicate any protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs.

These are known as ‘Follow-on Biologics’ or more commonly ‘Biosimilar Drugs’, which rely in part, on prior information obtained from the innovators’ products and demonstration of similarity with the originator’s molecule based on detailed and comprehensive product characterization, for their marketing approval.

The bedrock: 

India seems to have a good potential to become one of the key players in the development and manufacture of biosimilar drugs, not only to serve the needs of the local population, but also for exports to large developed and other developing markets. However, for this dream to materialize science-driven ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ are absolutely necessary and should form the bedrock in the development process of all such drugs.

Paving the way: 

These guidelines will provide a regulatory framework or pathway to ensure that biosimilar Drugs approved in India are of good quality and demonstrably similar in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to the original reference products.

Paving the way for such regulatory framework in the country with comprehensive sets of guidelines is of utmost importance, especially in the light of prevailing sub-optimal pharmacovigilance system in India.

Setting ground rules: 

Considerable developments have occurred across the globe in the scientific and regulatory understanding of biosimilar drugs. Nearly all developed nations and many developing countries have now defined or in the process of defining appropriate regulatory framework for the same.

However, due to lack of such guidelines in India, until recently, there have been instances of so called ‘biosimilar drugs’ being approved for marketing, reportedly with sub-optimal testing and dossiers, thereby putting into question the product quality, comparability and patient safety.

With the above backdrop, the Ministries of Health & Family Welfare and the Science and Technology have now set the ground rules and released India’s first “Guidelines on Similar Biologics: Regulatory Requirements for Marketing Authorization in India”. These Guidelines are already in place effective September 15, 2012.

A step in the right direction: 

Long awaited new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ of India, demonstrating an overall similarity in the philosophy and approach with the those in the U.S and Europe, though a belated move by the Government, but certainly a step in the right direction.

The global potential:

In most of the developed countries, besides regulatory issues, biosimilar drugs are considered to be a threat to fast growing high value innovative global biotech industry.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to effectively address the global concern for cheaper and more affordable biologic medicines for patients across the world. To achieve this objective, relatively smaller biotech companies, given the required wherewithal  at their disposal, could emerge as winners in this new ball game as compared to traditional generic pharmaceutical players.

Biosimilar drugs will, therefore, have immense global potential to improve access to life saving biologic medicines for the ailing population across the continents.

First ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the US: 

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘Biosimilar drug’- Omnitrope of Sandoz (Novartis) following a court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone, Genotropin. Interestingly, Sandoz had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

Having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Despite this event, very few people at that time expected the US FDA to put regulatory guidelines in place for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world.

Global initiatives:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are the examples of some relatively recent biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players:

  • Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million in cash. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, as we move on. 

In India: 

  • Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) has already been marketing a biosimilar version of Rituxan of Roche since 2007.
  • Reliance Life Science is also a potential player in the biosimilar market, though it has reportedly faced a setback in Europe with the regulators asking for more data for its version of EPO prompting them to withdraw their application for now.

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

The global market:

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

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

Major Indian players:

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

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

The domestic market:

According to IMS Health March 2012, the biosimilar drugs market in India is around US$ 700 million with the main categories being as follows:

Therapy Area US $ Million
Insulin 250
Hepatitis-B Vaccine 200
Heparin 70
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin 50

Moreover, as per available reports, till March 2012 about 91 clinical trials have been lined-up in India for 20 recombinant therapeutics, as approved by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee.

Brand proliferation offering wider choices: 

Currently there has been huge brand proliferation for biosimilar products in India with around 250 brands in 20 therapeutic areas. Some examples are as follows:

Therapy Area No. of Brands
Insulin 40
Erythropoietin 55
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin 48
Streptokinase 33
Interferon 10
Heparin 10

Increasing demand:

The demand of such drugs even in India is increasing at a rapid pace. The focus of the government on various immunization programs is also getting sharper simultaneously. For example, during 2011-12, the government spent around US$ 115 million for routine immunization covering reportedly about 25 million pregnant women and children and nearly US$ 140 million towards pulse polio vaccination initiatives. This trend, though may not still be enough for the size and scale of a country like India, but praiseworthy nonetheless.

The focus on Oncology: 

Within bio-pharmaceuticals many companies are targeting Oncology disease area, which is estimated to be the largest emerging segment with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion in 2010 growing over 17%.

As per recent reports about 8 million deaths take place all over the world every year only due to cancer. May be for this reason, the research pipeline for NMEs is dominated by oncology with global pharmaceutical majors’ sharp R&D focus and research spend being on this particular disease area.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched in the global markets by 2015.

Indian market for oncology products: 

Current size of the Indian oncology market is reportedly around US$ 75 million.

Biocon has launched its monoclonal antibody based drug BIOMAb-EGFR for treating solid tumors with intent to introduce this product in the western markets as soon as they can get necessary regulatory approvals. Similarly, Ranbaxy with its strategic collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is planning to market oncology products in various markets of the world like, Brazil, Mexico, CIS and Russia.

Government support: 

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has proposed funding of US$ 68 million for biosimilar drugs through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for the same.

Currently DBT spends reportedly around US$ 200 million annually towards biotechnology related projects. 

Areas of concern:

According to a research report from ‘The Decision Resources’, one of the key success factors for any such new biosimilar drugs, especially from India, will be how quickly the specialists accept them.

The report also noted a high level of concerns, if such drugs are not supported by robust sets of clinical data on the claimed treatment indications. To allay this concern robust implementation of the recent biosimilar guidelines in India will play a very critical role.

Conclusion: 

As the R&D based global innovator companies are expanding into the biosimilar space, many Indian domestic pharmaceutical companies are also poised to invest on biosimilars drugs development to fully encash the emerging global opportunities in this area. It is quite prudent for the Indian players to focus on the oncology therapy area, as it has now emerged as the fastest growing segment in the global pharmaceutical industry.

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

Experience in conformance to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside U.S, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India.

Having progressed thus far, with adequate additional investments for similar biologics and ensuring robust implementation of new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’, India has the potential to earn the leadership status even in the global biosimilar segment, just as it did in the generic pharmaceutical space of the world.

By: Tapan J Ray    

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

‘The Pharmacy of the Developing World’ keeps its eye on the ball to emerge as ‘The Pharmacy of the World’

Posted on by
Reply

The incessant march of the home grown pharmaceutical companies of India in search of excellence, especially in the space of high quality low cost generic medicines for almost all disease areas, continues at a scorching space, probably more than ever before.

It has been recently reported  that among the top 10 fastest-growing generic companies globally, three are now from India with Sagent Pharma of the U.S topping the league table. These ‘Crown Jewels’ of India are as follows:

Company Global rank Growth %
Glenmark pharmaceuticals 5 37
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) 6 34
Sun Pharma 8 29

In terms of country ranking, currently India is among the top 20 pharmaceutical exporting countries of the world. It exports high quality and very reasonably priced generic drugs to around 220 countries across the world, including highly regulated markets like USA and EU.

Today India contributes around 20 percent of the total volume of global generic formulations and has registered a CAGR of 21 percent between 2005 and 2011. It is, therefore, no wonder that India is popularly called ‘The Pharmacy of the Developing World’, despite many formidable challenges from various corners.

Focus on opportunities and less of moaning:

It is worth noting that Indian pharmaceutical players have been keeping their eyes on the ball always as they keep expanding their market access globally and do not seem to let go any opportunities untried, like:

  • Large number of blockbuster drugs going off- patent
  • Product portfolio strategy with many first-to-file products.

Unlike many others, these winners do not also seem to get engaged much in moaning, which could significantly dilute their operational focus. 

Aiming the top: 

Currently, more than a third of the Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) in the U.S is being filed by the domestic Indian players.  Another industry estimate indicates that the Indian companies are filling on an average around 1000 ANDAs every year to reap a rich harvest out of the available opportunity, which will increase by manifold as about US$150 billion worth of drugs go off-patent between 2010 and 2015 as reported by the Crisil Research.

Similarly, India accounted for 45 percent in 2009 and 49 percent in 2010 of the total Drug Master Filing (DMF) for bulk drug in the US, which has reportedly increased to 51 percent in 2011. 

The key trigger factor:

Experts opine that the reason for the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry being able to be recognized as a global force to reckon with, especially in the generic pharma landscape, is due to the amendment of the Indian Patents Act in 1970 allowing only process patents for drugs and pharmaceuticals.

The Government of India had taken such a path-breaking decision in the 70’s to lay the foundation of a vibrant domestic pharmaceutical industry capable of manufacturing low cost and high quality modern medicines for the people of the country leveraging latest technology, including IT.

This decision was also directed towards creation of ‘drug security’ for the country as in the 70’s the country was very heavily dependent on drug imports and the domestic pharmaceutical industry was virtually non-existent. 

The rich pay-off:

Though the country reverted to the product patent regime again in January 1, 2005, the critical mass that the home grown pharma industry had developed during almost thirty five years’ time in between, had catapulted India towards achieving today’s self-sufficiency in meeting the needs of affordable drugs for the ailing population of the country and perhaps including even those living beyond the shores of India.

The above ‘trigger factor’ has indeed paid a rich dividend to the country, by any yardstick. Currently India ranks third globally in terms of manufacturing of pharmaceutical products in volume.

Moreover, domestic pharmaceutical companies have now between themselves around 175 USFDA and approximately 90 UK-MHRA approved manufacturing units to cater to the needs of high quality and affordable pharma products across the world. 

The Leading Indian Pharmaceutical ‘Crown Jewels’:

The following are the leading Indian Pharmaceutical players in terms of sales:

Company Sales in US $Mn Year End
Cipla 6,368.06 March 2011
Ranbaxy Lab 5,687.33 December 2010
Dr Reddy’s Labs 5,285.80 March 2011
Sun Pharma 1,985.78 March 2011
LupinLtd 4,527.12 March 2011
Aurobindo Pharma 4,229.99 March 2011
Piramal Health 1,619.74 March 2011
Cadila Health 2,213.70 March 2011
Matrix Labs 1,894.30 March 2010
Wockhardt 651.72 December 2011

(Source: India Biz News: April 13, 2012)

Domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies currently control not only over 75 percent of the total domestic market, but also export low cost and high quality drugs to over 220 countries, as mentioned above, including  US, EU, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, North Africa, Ukraine, Vietnam, and now Japan.

US accounts for 22 percent of the total Indian pharmaceutical exports, with Africa accounting for 16 percent and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) eight percent, as reported by India Biz News: April 13, 2012.

Incessant growth story:

As reported by Dolat Capital, US generic market currently estimated at US $350 billion, is expected to grow by around 12 to13 per cent over 2011to15 period keeping the Indian pharmaceutical growth story intact, adding albeit more shin to it.

After the new healthcare reform brought in by President Barrack Obama, generic drugs now play a critical role in the US healthcare system, predominantly driven by the cost containment pressure of the government.

According to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association of US, generic medicines saved the healthcare system of the country over US$734 billion during 1999 to 2008 period. Expenditure on patented medicines being one of the fastest-growing components of healthcare costs, over a period of time, has now become a prime target for cost reduction by the US government.

‘The Guardian’ guards:

Some international experts do contemplate that potentially retarding global forces may attempt to cast their dark shadows over the well hyped ‘India Pharma Shining Story’ in the generic space of the industry from time to time, which needs to carefully guarded against and more importantly effectively negated.

In an interesting article, though in a different context, titled “Pharmaceutical companies putting health of world’s poor at risk: India makes cheap medicines for poor people around the world”, recently published in ‘The Guardian’, the author Hans Lofgren, an associate professor in politics at Deakin University, Melbourne articulates as follows:

“The EU, pharmaceutical firms and now the US are pressuring the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’ to change tack”.

Lofgren further commented: “We ought to be asking why governments in the rich world still seem happy to checkmate the lives of poor people to save their political skins. And why the pharmaceutical industry sees India as such a threat. Could it be that they detect the whiff of real competition?”

Conclusion: 

Be that as it may, after gaining the required critical mass, the shining story of the home grown pharmaceutical industry of India seems to be irreversible now, despite possible challenges as they will emerge.

Paying kudos to the pharmaceutical ‘Crown Jewels’ of India, many industry watchers feel that the global industry is now keener than ever before to take extra steps to keep the domestic pharma industry, enjoying a mind boggling over 75 percent share of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market, in the forefront and in a good humor to achieve their India objectives.

‘The Pharmacy of the Developing World’ should, therefore, continue to keep its eye on the ball keeping the flocks together and try to effectively translate it into the ‘The Pharmacy of the World’, as the global community keeps looking at this great transformation as a ‘miracle’ with much admiration and probably blended with a dash of awe and envy.

By: Tapan J Ray  

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

A Kaleidoscope of Drug Price Control Spanning Across the World and Its Relevance to India

Posted on by
Reply

How much to charge for a drug?

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of a medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for a drug still remains an important, yet complex and difficult task, both locally and globally.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the US Department of Commerce, after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries concluded that all of them enforce some form of price controls to limit spending on pharmaceuticals.

The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as the de facto market price. Moreover, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market.

An evolving rational system of drug pricing:

The values of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomic analysis are gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world.

In countries like, Australia and  within Europe in general, health outcomes data analysis is almost mandatory to establish effectiveness of a new drug over the existing ones.

Even in the US, where the reimbursement price is usually negotiated with non-government payors, many health insurers have now started recognizing the relevance of such data.

Such price negotiations at times take a long while and may also require other concessions by manufacturers, for example:

  • In the UK, a specified level of profitability may constrain the manufacturers.
  • Spain would require a commitment of a sales target from the manufacturers, who are made responsible to compensate for any excess sales by paying directly to the government either the incremental profit or by reducing the product price proportionately.

Pharmacoeconomic Based or Value-Based Pricing (PBP/VBP):

Pharmacoeconomics, as we know, is a scientific model of setting price of a medicine commensurate to the economic value that the drug/therapy would offer.  Pharmacoeconomic principles, therefore, intend to maximize the value obtained from expenditures towards medicines through a structured evaluation of products costs and disease outcomes.

PBP/VBP is widely considered to offer the ‘best value for money’ spent to buy a medicine, as it is ‘the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative ones’.

A contrarian view:

Let me hasten to add that some shortcomings in PBP/VBP system have already been highlighted by some experts and are being debated threadbare. The key question that is being mooted now is, how to quantify the value of a saved life or relief of intense agony of patients while arriving at a price of a drug based on PBP/VBP model.

PBP/VBP could help ‘freeing-up’ resources to go to front-line healthcare: 

As per the Department of Health, UK, ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’ ‘will help creating a world-class NHS that saves thousands more lives every year by freeing up resources to go to the front line, giving professionals power and patients choice, and maintaining the principle that healthcare should be delivered to patients on the basis of need, not their ability to pay’.

Pharmaceutical Price Control has assumed global importance:

Pricing of pharmaceutical products has now become one of the most complex and a very sensitive area of the business, like never before. This is mainly because of the concerns on the impact of medicine prices to access of medicines, especially, in the developing markets, like India and the cost containment pressure of the governments as well as the healthcare providers in the developed markets of the world.

Evolving Pharmaceutical pricing models:

Pharmaceutical pricing mechanism has undergone significant changes across the world. The old concept of pharmaceutical price being treated as almost given and usually determined only by the market forces with very less regulatory scrutiny is gradually but surely giving away to a new regime.

Currently in many cases, the prices of even patented medicines differ significantly from country to country across the globe, reflecting mainly the differences in their healthcare systems and delivery, along with income status and economic conditions.

Global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of the respective countries. This strategy includes India, as well.

Reference pricing model is yet another such example, where the pricing framework of a pharmaceutical product will be established against the price of a reference drug in the reference countries.

The reference drug may be of different types, for example:

  1. Another drug in the same therapeutic category
  2. A drug having the same clinical indications available in the country of interest e.g, Canada fixes the drug prices with reference to prices charged for the same drug in the US and some European Union countries.

A Kaleidoscope of Drug Price Control across the world:

In most of the countries around the world drug price control in some form or the other has been put in place by the respective governments. Following are just a few examples:

Price Control in Germany:

In not so distant past pharma companies operating in Germany could fix any price for both patented and generic medicines. As a result, the drug prices in Germany have since long been among the highest in Europe.

‘The Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG)’ that came into effect in January 2011 to regulate the price of new prescription drugs in Germany, is expected to assist in the overall effort to curb in exploding costs for the country’s public health insurance system.

Under the new law, as reported by ‘InPharm’ dated November 12, 2010, pharmaceutical manufacturers in Germany, after the launch of a new drug, will have a one-year window to negotiate prices with health insurers. In case there happens to be no positive outcome of such negotiations, German Health Ministry would set a maximum price for the drug, which would then undergo a cost/benefit analysis by Germany’s ‘Health Technology Assessment (HTA)’ body IQWiG. Thereafter, the price will be fixed for the said new drug accordingly.

Price Control in Spain:

In Spain the local law has made HTA mandatory to ascertain the efficacy, cost, efficiency, effectiveness, safety, and therapeutic utility of different alternatives for the treatment of a disease condition.

After marketing approval of a new drug, either by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) or the Spanish Medicine Agency (AEMPS),  the Ministry of Health (MSC) invites the manufacturer to provide all relevant information to allow the ‘Inter-Ministerial Pricing Commission (CIPM)’, chaired by the MSC, to decide the right price of the product. After negotiation, if the outcome is positive for inclusion of the product in the national reimbursement list, the decision is implemented across the country.

Effective June 2010, price cuts have been imposed by Spain on reimbursed patented drugs with rebates of 7.5% of sales, under the National Health System (NHS).

Effective July 2010, an average 25% cut has also been implemented for generic medicines in the country.

New Price Control mechanism in the UK:

Quite like US, UK has been one of those western countries, which allows pharmaceutical manufacturers to set their own prices. However, after the expiry of the current ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS)’ in 2013, despite many concerns, as decided by the ‘National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)’,  ‘Value-based pricing (VBP)’ is expected to be followed for pharmaceutical product pricing in the UK.  VBP will be worked out ‘by the maximum affordable cost per ‘Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY)’ generated by the use of new medicines.’

To arrive at VBP for a new product, pharmaceutical manufacturers will require furnishing enough evidence, based on clinical trial, to establish superiority of a new drug over the ones already available in the market.

However, VBP will be followed only for the new prescription drugs and not for the existing ones or generic medicines, with the main regulatory focus being on profit rather than on price control of drugs.

Price Control in France:

As per ISPOR, in France the price control of pharmaceutical products is implemented as follows:

“All registered pharmaceuticals are subjected to Evaluation of Therapeutic Benefit (Amelioration du Service Medical Rendu, or ASMR) by ‘Commission de Transparence (Transparency Commission)’, which is expressed as a classification between 1 & 6, as follows:

  1. Innovative product of significant therapeutic benefit
  2. Product of therapeutic benefit, in terms of efficacy and/or reduction in side effect profile
  3. Already existing product, where equivalent pharmaceuticals exist; moderate improvement in terms of efficacy and/or reduction in side effect profile
  4. Minor improvement in terms of efficacy and/or utility
  5. No improvement but still granted recommendations to be listed
  6. Negative opinion regarding inclusion on the reimbursement list

The ASMR evaluation is based on the expert judgment of the Transparency Commission of the Pharmaceutical Agency ‘(Agence du Medicament)’. Subsequently, a reimbursement price negotiated with ‘Comité Economique du Médicament (CEM)’. The price negotiated with CEM becomes the price at which the drug is sold throughout the country, even for private prescriptions.”

As a part of the 2011 Social Security Budget Bill, France has decided to significantly reduce its healthcare cost by enforcing price cuts including parallel import of drugs.

Price Control in Australia:

Just as many OECD countries, Australia also use drug price control mechanisms to contain its healthcare expenditure. The Australian government manages their healthcare expenditure through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), where the pharma companies are required to prove the cost-effectiveness of their drugs for subsequent pricing negotiations with the government.

Price Control in China:

In China, since 2007, ”The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)’ controls drug prices in the country. There was, however, a significant re-engineering of the system in  November 2010, when NDRC drastically reduced the prices of essential drugs manufactured locally in partnership with global pharma majors like, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. In March 2011 prices were slashed for over 1,000 drugs in China.

Patented and imported products enjoyed relatively free-market pricing in China, for some time. However, recently to increase the coverage of ‘Universal Healthcare’, the Chinese pricing authorities have initiated price control measures for many pharmaceutical products in the country.

Pricing mechanism in Singapore:

Singapore also follows a free-market pricing approach for pharmaceutical products, which is, reportedly, to recognize the value and importance of patented products in the country. Though Singapore Government provides ‘Universal Healthcare’ to its residents, individuals are required to share the costs of healthcare services they consume.

This has made the cost of healthcare in Singapore rather expensive, especially for the retired persons and low-income citizens of the country. As a consequence of which, many individuals who would require regular treatment with medicines, very often go to nearby Malaysia to buy those medicines at much lesser prices, probably causing a revenue loss to the Singapore market.

Price control in Japan:

In Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) follows a system of pricing where the new drugs prices are determined based on those comparable drugs, which are already available in the country. However, in those cases where MHLW cannot find any comparable drug for assessment ‘cost based pricing’ system is followed. The new drugs which are assessed as innovative by the MHLW may attract a premium based on pre-determined criteria.

Price Control in Brazil:

In Brazil, the government controls the drug prices through designated agencies. The ‘Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)’ is responsible for the marketing approval of new drugs and the ‘Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED)’ is responsible not only for determining the prices of new drugs, but also for any subsequent price changes for all drugs in the market.

Price Control in Russia:

Currently pricing regulations are applicable to only ‘essential drugs’ in Russia. However, ‘thepharmaletter’ in its January 25, 2011 edition reported that ‘Federal Commission on Safety of Medical Business (FCSMB)’ of Russia has proposed a quick introduction of the government control over prices of all drugs in the domestic market costing more than 100 Roubles (US$3.34).

FCSMB believes that the current system of drug pricing in Russia offers a distinct advantage to the global pharmaceutical players. Hence, the agency feels, the state regulation on all drug prices is necessary in the country.

A damning article from “Los Angeles Times”:

Though United States of America (USA) still remains a free-market even for pharmaceutical product pricing, increasing number of voices are now being heard in favor of pharmaceutical price control even in that country.

‘Los Angeles Times’ in its October 10, 2009 edition commented, “Healthcare reform without drug price controls? That’s sick”.

While, acknowledging high cost of pharmaceutical research, the article continued to state, ”In fact, the companies’ actual research costs are one of the industry’s most closely guarded secrets. In the 1970s and 1980s, pharmaceutical companies waged a decade-long legal battle to keep even government auditors from reviewing those costs, leaving it unclear whether they include non- scientific costs such as promotion”.

The article stated that the bigger issue that has largely escaped public scrutiny is that “Over the last 30 years, the industry hasn’t focused its efforts on discovering those truly amazing innovations that can change the practice of medicine. Instead, the companies have taken the easy path, ordering their scientists to turn out mostly rehashes of medicines already being sold. It’s far cheaper to copy a medicine — tweaking a molecule just enough so it gets its own patent — than it is to do the years of work needed to find new and better cures”.

The author further highlighted, “This focus on copycat medicines is apparent in the list of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Of the medicines approved between 1990 and 2004, only 16% were what government reviewers deemed to be actually new and significant. The rest were medicines we were already using in a slightly different form. This explains why our pharmacies are stocked with a multitude of medicines that reduce cholesterol in the same exact way. With no price controls, the industry gets away with charging exorbitant amounts — even for drugs that barely work.”

High out-of-pocket expenses for health makes price control relevant in India: 

Medicines are essential for all and constitute a significant cost component of modern healthcare systems, globally. However, in India, overall healthcare system is fundamentally different from many other countries, including China.

Around 80% of expenses towards healthcare, including medicines, are reimbursed either by the Governments or through Health Insurance or similar other mechanisms in many countries.

However, in India the situation is just the reverse, more than 70% of overall healthcare costs are private or out-of-pocket expenses, incurred by the individuals/families. In addition, out of the total 70% out-of-pocket expenses, medicines contribute around 71%, making the life more difficult for many. (Reference: ‘High Level Expert Group Report on Universal Health Coverage for India’ Instituted by Planning Commission of India).

Thus the issue of price control of ‘Essential medicines’ is extremely relevant in the country, more so when pharmaceuticals come under its Essential Commodities Act.

Conclusion:

It is now widely believed that pharmaceutical products, which play a pivotal role in keeping the population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should not be exploited by anyone.

Pharmaceutical companies are often criticized in this area by those stakeholders who are genuinely concerned with the well-being of particularly ailing poor and underprivileged population across the world.

While looking through the ‘Kaleidoscope of Drug Price Control’ spanning across the world, it appears quite obvious that the raging debate on improving access to modern medicines will continue to revolve round the pharmaceutical pricing mechanism in almost all countries of the world. India is no exception, in any way.

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.