Monday, May 13, 2013

Need for a Strategic and Comprehensive Approach to Healthcare

On the 13th of last month, a timely day-long panel discussion was conducted by NLU Delhi on the Novartis decision of the Supreme Court. Among the participants, the ones whose presentations I found particularly insightful were that of Adarsh Ramanujan of Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan, Dr.K.M.Gopakumar of Third World Network, Mr.Mark Heywood, Founder of Treatment Action Campaign (South Africa), Dr.Gopakumar G.Nair of Gopakumar Nair and Associates, and Mr.P.H.Kurian, former Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks.

In the post-lunch session chaired by Mr.C.H.Unni, Deputy Chief of Bureau, Mint, I had the opportunity to present some of my views which went beyond the decision. This post captures some of those views.

With pharma patent litigation having taken centre stage, the one thing that we need to be wary of is the temptation to expect the patent system to solve all our healthcare challenges, including that of affordable access to medicines. This temptation becomes a necessity all the more in the absence of a clear-cut healthcare strategy, since the Government would want to be seen as doing something, and patent busting is probably the most public way that the government can probably think of to achieve that object, given the (un)popular perception of patents and innovator drug companies.

Patents are without a doubt relevant to the debate, and patents which add no value must definitely be weeded out. But the question is, apart from pitting innovator drug companies against generics and deriving a vicarious pleasure out of this slugfest, have we truly explored all plausible and available options under and outside the Patents Act, 1970?

For instance, if the Government is truly keen on weeding out frivolous patent applications or patents, it ought to have actively explored the pre and post-grant opposition mechanisms, besides revocation by filing oppositions and revocations. After all, the definition of “person” under the Act includes the government, so what has stopped the Ministry of Health from filing oppositions to frivolous patent applications?

Also, what has the stopped the Government from stocking adequate quantities of patented drugs in hospitals and dispensaries owned by the Government, thereby giving effect to Section 47(4) of the Act? Wouldn’t this help increase affordable access to drugs?

Apart from patent-related issues, one of the issues central to the discourse is elevating the quality of research undertaken by Indian pharma companies and providing impetus to the growth of home-grown entities in related areas such as clinical trials. Instead of investing efforts in this direction, the Government has in fact contributed to the potential decline of Indian clinical trial industry by implementing feckless provisions such as the new Rule 122DAB of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which states that failure of an investigational product to provide the intended therapeutic effect shall be considered as having caused a clinical trial-related injury or death!

As argued in an earlier post, if the very purpose of the trial is to evaluate the drug, what sense does it make to hold the sponsor of a trial or the Clinical Trial Organization responsible for failure of the drug to provide the intended therapeutic effect?

Unfortunately, instead of addressing issues like these, the discourse seems to be focussing entirely on the system of patents. It would help to first formulate our healthcare goals in specific terms, and then explore options under multiple legislations, instead of putting all our eggs in the patent basket.

4 comments:

  1. Thank you Sai for a good read. Healthcare in India has so many conundrums, both in practice and policy, that in the scheme of things, patents don't occupy a big part of the discussion within the industry. The big issues currently being discussed at the water-coolers (we've got them too!) are fee structures, clinical trials and the ethics of pharma relationships (how far can you push the envelope is what most want to know,btw!) Conversation can be surprisingly local. :) In policy circles; it is UHC, financing and the modes of private-public partnership.
    Thanks especially for the 122DAB tip. Do read the HLEG report if you get a chance. I don't agree with everything there but it was a good report that should've set the ball rolling. I have an alternate proposal to the UHC as suggested by HLEG up on my blog; it was also published by CRI; generated buzz initially with the predictable wane. It is very hard to start a conversation on healthcare/ you'll be surprised how low a priority it is! :)) If you'd like to read: here is the link: http://wp.me/p1iyBC-fv UHC 2 summaries & critiques (in part) the hefty HLEG report.

    Meanwhile, UHC has pretty much been shelved by the govt and we can only hope that the next govt will re-consider a comprehensive overhauling of Healthcare. Cheers and thanks again for a good read!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Meena for this informative comment. I'll certainly read up the links you've given. It is so refreshing to see someone (you) deal with specifics of relevant issues, instead of resorting to "academic populism" which plagues IP and healthcare debate in India today :)

      Bests,
      Sai.

      Delete
  2. JSD, blogs are not immune to the equivalent of TRP's. That would probably explain the 'academic populism' and appeal to emotions rather than reason found in some blogs.

    The healthcare debate unfortunately gets limited to generic vs. innovator, and how little the Government is doing etc. The fundamental issue - that we as a national do not have any tangible/feasible healthcare goals is ignored.

    regards,

    annoyingmouse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am completely understand where you are coming from Sir. Lets hope this is a passing phase. Until then, at least some of us will do some "dry technical analysis" of issues that matter, instead of merely "sampling nuggets" :)

      Bests,
      Sai.

      Delete