India’s ‘National Health Policy 2015′ Needs Wings to Fly

Ensuring ‘access to healthcare for all’ has remained a key well-articulated good intent of all the successive Governments in India, cutting across the political regimes, since 1983.

The Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare published the first “National Health Policy (NHP)”, in 1983, which was endorsed by the Indian Parliament in the same year. The policy categorically enunciated the following:

“India is committed to attaining the goal of ‘Health for All by the Year 2000 A.D.’ through the universal provision of comprehensive primary healthcare services”.

For the first time after independence, this document captured the key directions and dimension of the national health policy such as, the creation of infrastructure for primary healthcare; close co-ordination with health-related services and activities (like nutrition, drinking water supply and sanitation); active involvement and participation of voluntary organizations; provision of essential drugs and vaccines; qualitative improvement in health and family planning services; provision of adequate training; and medical research aimed at the common health problems of the people. However, it did not elaborate much about the Universal Health Care (UHC).

Abysmal public expenditure to meet the key goal of NHP 1983:

The NHP 1983, which was revised in 2002, recommended an increase in public health expenditure to 2.0 percent of GDP in 2010.

The 12th Fiver Year Plan of the Government of India again acknowledged that the health sector expenditure by the central and state governments, both plan and non-plan will have to be substantially increased during the plan period. It also stated that the health expenditure was increased from 0.94 per cent of GDP in the 10th Plan to 1.04 per cent in 11th Plan and it should be increased to 2.5 per cent of GDP by the end of 12th Five Year Plan period.

That said, the bottom-line is, the current public spending on health is stagnating around 0.9 percent of the GDP. Leave aside implementation of the 1983 NHP goal of providing “Health for all by the year 2000 A.D”, even in 2015, India continues to grapple with the challenges for ensuring availability, accessibility, affordability and quality of comprehensive healthcare to all, though various governments have come and gone during this period. India’s rank in the Human Development Index (HDI) also remains at pitiful 136 out of 187 countries and despite improvements, India is likely to miss some key MDG targets in 2015.

Pockets of improvements – mostly grossly inadequate:

In the midst of gloom and doom in the health space of India, the 57 page draft NHP 2015 captures some of commendable improvements, as well, and very rightly so, which I am not going to repeat in this article.

A June 2013 report of IMS Institute also acknowledges that the extent of change and improvement in India’s healthcare system over the past decade is remarkable. The Government of India’s initiatives, as well as private sector actions and public-private-partnership programs, have contributed to this progress. Yet a lot more remains to be done.

The report highlights the following areas, which are worth taking note of:

• The physical accessibility of public or private healthcare facilities is a challenge in rural areas. By contrast, in urban areas, accessibility is less of a challenge due to more facilities being available.

• An increasing proportion of the population is using private healthcare 
facilities for both in-patient and out-patient treatments. Long waiting times and absence of diagnostic facilities are among the main reasons private healthcare facilities are chosen over public centers for in-patient treatment. For out-patient treatment, the availability or doctors and quality of care are cited as reasons for selecting a private healthcare facility. However, patients would readily switch to public healthcare centers if these issues were addressed, the research report states.

• The cost of treatment at a public healthcare facility is much more affordable than at a private center. However, due to lack of physical reach, availability of quality treatment and other practices, patients are forced to use more expensive private facilities, thus exacerbating affordability challenges. The majority of Out of Pocket (OoP) expenses are due to medicines.

• Overall, while there are pockets of improvements, significant healthcare access challenges continue to exist for the Indian population, especially in rural areas.

OoP expenses on health is one of the highest in India:

Out of Pocket (OoP) expenditure on health is one of the highest in India at 61.7 percent, as acknowledges by the draft NHP 2015, as well. This is against 35.3 of China, 30.6 of Brazil, 44.6 of Sri Lanka, 61.3 of Bangladesh, 14 of Thailand, 8.9 of United Kingdom and 11.8 of the United States. The reason being, due to lack of access to cheaper and quality public health facilities, a vast majority of the Indian population is forced to turn to expensive private healthcare providers, as confirmed by the IMS Institute in its above report..

Suggested framework for a comprehensive view of healthcare access:

The same June 2013 report of IMS Institute states that healthcare access has varying meaning in different countries, especially across developing and developed economies. In the developed economies, it is often equated to the access status of healthcare insurance, whereas in the developing economies, it is viewed primarily across two dimensions: the physical reach of a healthcare facility, and affordability to the patient.

Thus, it is important to build a framework that would provide a comprehensive view to healthcare access. The framework should be able to define healthcare access in the Indian context, aided by other parameters that are key in ensuring quality treatment to a patient.

The framework also allows understanding of each component of healthcare access separately, including inter-dependencies.

According to IMS Institute, healthcare access has 4 key dimensions as follows:

Physical Reach:

This component defines physical accessibility of a requisite healthcare facility, i.e. availability of a healthcare facility having an out-patient department (OPD) for common ailments, and an in-patient department (IPD) for hospitalization. These facilities may either be public or private in nature. Physical reach is defined as the ability to enter a healthcare facility within 5 kilometers (5km) from the place of residence or work.

Availability/Capacity:

This component defines availability of the requisite healthcare resources to provide patient treatment, i.e. doctors, nurses, in-patient beds, diagnostics, consumables, etc. The availability is governed by minimum specifications defined by the Government of India for public healthcare facilities, and international organizations such as W.H.O.

Quality/Functionality:

This component defines the quality of the healthcare resources available at the point of patient treatment.

Affordability:

This component defines the ability of a patient to afford complete treatment for the illness or disease.

Draft NHP 2015 – ‘Health is a fundamental right’:

Though the above parameters were not quite considered, as such, to define access to healthcare, the new government has done a good job with the draft NHP 2015, while updating NHP 2002. The new draft has evoked good interest among the stakeholders as healthcare has become very costly in India and continues to go north, steadily, as mentioned above.

The draft has covered lots of ground related to health, spanning across the change in the nature of the nation’s disease burden from communicable to non-communicable diseases, shortage of human resources in health sector and right up to the use of information and communication technology. It’s a hard fact that low investment in public health has been placing India consistently at the lower rungs of the development indices.

Against the backdrop of paltry public expenditure on health, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare through its draft National Health Policy, 2015 (NHP 2015) has proposed making health a fundamental right, similar to denial of health an offence.

The draft policy reiterates, “Many industrialized nations have laws that do so. Many of the developing nations that have made significant progress towards universal health coverage, such as Brazil and Thailand, have done so, and … such a law is a major contributory factor. A number of international covenants to which we [India] are joint signatories give us such a mandate – and this could be used to make a national law. Courts have also rulings that, in effect, see health care as a fundamental right — and a constitutional obligation flowing out of the right to life.”

The draft NHP 2015 even states, “The Centre shall enact, after due discussion and on the request of three or more states a National Health Rights Act, which will ensure health as a fundamental right, whose denial will be justiciable.”

The new draft policy acknowledges that primary healthcare of date covers not more than 20 per cent of the health needs and that a very high OoP health expenditure (over 61 percent on medicines) is pushing nearly 63 million people into poverty every year.

One of the key features of the new draft policy is an universal medical insurance scheme that will be virtually free for the poor and affordable for the rest. The government expects the stakeholders to send their comments and suggestions on the draft policy by February 28, 2014.

However, the draft NHP 2015 does not deliberate on some other important areas, such as specific time-bound commitments on public investments, insurance cover on outpatient treatments & care and appropriate regulations for the private sector to contain healthcare costs.

Cut on current year health budget raises may eyebrows:

In the midst of the prevailing lackluster public healthcare scenario, just in the last month (December 2014), the government has reportedly ordered a US$ 948 million (20 percent) cut in its 2014-15 healthcare budget due to fiscal constraints.

It is worth mentioning that at 0.9 percent of GDP, India’s public health expenditure is already among the lowest in the world, as compared to compared to 2.7 percent in China, 4.2 percent in brazil, 1.4 percent in Bangladesh, 1.6 percent in Sri Lanka, 2.9 percent in Thailand and 8.5 percent in the United States.

In addition to the healthcare budget, the finance ministry has reportedly also ordered a spending cut this year for India’s HIV/AIDS program by about 30 percent to US$ 205.4 million.

A report from Reuters, quoting one of the health ministry officials, stated that this budget cut could crimp efforts to control the spread of diseases. More newborns die in India than in poorer neighbors such as Bangladesh, and preventable illnesses such as diarrhea kill more than a million children every year.

Needs wings to fly:

To read more, please click on this link

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs with Safety Concerns

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs with Safety Concerns

With the patent expiry of exorbitantly priced biologic medicines, introduction of biosimilar drugs are expected to improve their access to millions of patients across the world, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the subsequent years. According to an article published in Forbes, it is estimated that the potential savings in the United States alone from just 11 biosimilar drugs over a period ranging from 2014 to 2024 could easily be U$250 billion.

However, the flip side of this much awaited development would make commensurate dent on the sales performance of original brand name biologics, now being marketed by the global pharma majors armed with patent monopoly rights.

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

Facing this stark reality, global innovators of biotech drugs allegedly want to fast germinate a strong apprehension in the minds of all concerned on the safety and replaceability of biosimilar drugs. Consequently, this would severely restrict the usage of this new class of products, sacrificing patients’ health interest.

To translate this grand plan into reality, garnering additional support from ten medical societies and a physicians’ group, the global players, which mostly hold various patents on biologics, reportedly urged the USFDA to require biosimilars to have distinct names from the original biologics, on the pretext that different names would make it easier for prescribers to distinguish between medicines that “may differ slightly” and also track adverse events and side effect reports that appear in patient records.

However, other stakeholders have negated this move, which is predominantly to make sure that no substitution of high priced original biologics takes place with the cheaper versions of equivalent biosimilars to save on drug costs.

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

Interestingly, this intense lobbying initiative of big pharma to assign a distinct or different name for biosimilar drugs, if accepted by the USFDA, would provide a clear and cutting-edge commercial advantage to the concerned pharma and biotech majors, even much after their respective biologic drugs go off patent.

Thus, the above allegedly concerted move does not surprise many.

Mounting protests against industry move:

Biosimilar drug makers, on the other hand, have suggested to the USFDA to make biosimilars fall under the same International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) system, like all generic prescription drugs.  They believe that new names would create confusion and the physicians and pharmacists may face difficulties in ascertaining whether biosimilar drugs serve the same purpose with similar dosing and regimens.

The protest seems to have a snowballing effect. In July 2014, by a letter to the Commissioner Hamburg of USFDA, different groups representing pharmacy, labor unions, health insurance plans and others, have reportedly urged her not to go for different INNs for the original biologic and a biosimilar drug, for the same reason as cited above. The letter reinforces that the industry move, if accepted by the USFDA could increase the possibility of medication errors, besides adversely affecting the substitution required to bring down overall health care costs for high priced specialized biologics, thereby slowing down the uptake of biosimilars significantly.

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

Another similar and major development followed soon. A letter titled, “Investor Statement on Board Oversight of Biosimilar Issues”, written by a group of 19 institutional investors that manages about US$430 billion in assets, to the boards of several big pharma and biotech companies, flagged that some pharma majors have been scandalizing the safety concerns of biosimilar drugs. This is happening despite the fact that this class of drugs already has a well-established track record in Europe.

They emphasize that recent actions taken by some big pharma companies could raise concerns on the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs, which would forestall any projected savings on that subject. They also reportedly expressed serious concern that shareholder interests could be adversely affected, if the pharma and biotech players pursue those policies that undermine corporate transparency and medical innovation.

The letter underscores, “Companies seeking to downplay the patient safety record of European biosimilars have also challenged the capacity of the FDA to promulgate rules and determine when biosimilars may be substituted for biologics.”

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

• Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.

• Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.

• Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.

• Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.

• In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

-       Policy and educational information provided on biosimilars should be balanced, accurate and informed by the patient safety experience of biosimilars in the European Union and other biosimilar drug markets.

-       Lobbying expenditures for federal and state activities related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed and the boards should ensure that political activities are aligned with the interests of investors and other stakeholders.

-       Key information about any partnership or business deal related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed to investors, including information about the value, terms and duration of the deal.

The WHO proposal:

In this context it is worth recapitulating, the World Health Organization (WHO) that oversees the global INN system has held a number of meetings to resolve this issue. TheWHO proposal suggests that the current system for choosing INNs to remain unchanged, but that a four-letter code would be attached at the end of every drug name. However, individual regulatory agencies in each country could choose whether to adopt such coding or not.

Let us wait to see what really pans out of this flexible WHO proposal on the subject.

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

It is important to note that the drug regulators carefully review biosimilars before giving marketing approval for any market, as these drugs must prove to be highly similar without any clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic molecules. The interchangeability between biosimilars and the original biologics must also be unquestionably demonstrated to be qualified for being substitutable at the pharmacy level without the need for intervention by a physician.

Thus, there does not seem to be any basis for different INN, other than to severely restrict competition from biosimilars.

12-year data exclusivity period for biologics – another hurdle created earlier:

To read on please click on this link

Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance to R&D Investments

Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance to R&D Investments

The costs of most of the new life saving drugs, used in the treatment of dreaded diseases such as cancer, have now started going north at a brisk pace, more than ever before.

From the global pharma industry perspective, the standard answer to this disturbing phenomenon has remained unchanged over a period of time. It continues to argue; with the same old emphasis and much challenged details that the high drug price is due to rapidly escalating R&D expenses.

However, experts have reasons to believe that irrespective of R&D costs, the companies stretch the new drug prices to the farthest edge to maximize profits. Generation of highest possible revenue for the product is the goal. Passing on the benefits of the new drug to a large number of patients does not matter, at all.

How credible is the industry argument?

In this context, let me take the example of Hepatitis C drug – Sovaldi of Gilead. Many now know that for each patient Sovaldi costs US$ 30,000 a month and US$ 84,000 for a treatment course.

According to an article published in Forbes, one health executive estimated that the annual price tag for Sovaldi could reach US$ 300 Billion because so many people have Hepatitis C infection worldwide.  This mindboggling amount is more than all spending on all drugs in the United States, currently.  A more realistic number might be between US$7 Billion and $12 Billion a year.  Even that amount is roughly five times the amount Gilead spends each year on research.

Like Sovaldi, in many other instances too, industry argument of recovering high R&D investment through product pricing would fall flat on its face.

Need to put all the cards on the table:

The distinguished author underscores in his article the expected responsibilities of the experts in this area to ask the global pharma industry to connect the dots for all us between:

• The societal goals they aim to achieve
• The costs they incur on R&D
• The profits they should reasonably be earning.

Public investments in R&D:

Another article titled, “Putting Price On Life”, argues that R&D projects are mainly initiated in the public sphere through tax-funded research. Unfortunately, patients do not derive any benefit of these public investments in terms of reduction in prices for the related drugs. On the contrary, they effectively pay for these new products twice – once through tax-funded research and then paying full purchase price of the same drug.

Additionally, industry corners the praise for the work done by others in tax-funded research, while at the same time making R&D less risky, as public funded research groups carry out most of the initial risk prone and breakthrough innovation.

The article also highlights that global pharma companies receive other tax credits over billions of dollars for their expenditure on R&D. However, the R&D figures that are produced are not adjusted to take into account the tax credits, thereby inflating costs and the prices of drugs.

All these tax credits significantly lower the private costs of doing the R&D in the United States, increasing the private returns. Interestingly, there does not seem to be any public information regarding who gets the tax credit and what the credit is used for, while the government does not retain any rights in the R&D.

Does pharma R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of these only 75 (11 percent) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the available drugs. However, more than 80 percent of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.

Thus, the question that very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs, and thereafter on aggressive marketing for their prescription generation? This is important, as the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit, after being prescribed by the doctors?

Should Pharma R&D move away from its traditional models?

The critical point to ponder today, should the pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this approach gains acceptance sooner, it could lead to significant increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients at large.

Finding the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Current IPR mechanism failing to deliver:

To continue reading please click on this link