final pro sir
DESCRIPTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE No.CHAPTER-1- INTRODUCTION 6-39 Objective of study Scope for pharmaceutical companies in India Entry modes in Indian market for pharmaceutical companiesCHAPTER-2- MAJOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES IN INDIA 40-68 Domestic player International playerCHAPTER-3- CATEGORIES OF MEDICINES 69-103 General drugs Life saving drugs Generic drugsCHAPTER-4- PRICING POLICIES OF MEDICINES 104-145 Pricing strategy Comparative analysis of pricing in different categories of medicineCHAPTER-5- PRICE VARIATION IN POPULAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES- A COMPARATIVE STUDY 146-165CHAPTER-6- ROLE OF GOVERNMENT 166-210 Rules and regulation implemented by Government Prohibited activities defined by the court and GovernmentCHAPTER-7- FACTOR AFFECTING PRICING OF MEDICINES 211-241 External factorsA) GovernmentB) CompetitorsC) Contagious diseaseCHAPTER-8- ETHICS AND PRICING RELATED TO LIFE SAVING DRUGS 242-297CHAPTER-9- 298-303 Limitation Conclusion Recommendation (if any)BIBLIOGRAPHY 304-305ANNEXURE 306-309TRANSCRIPT
FINAL PROJECT REPORTON
“STUDY ON PRICING POLICIES OF MEDICINES IN PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES”
A report submitted to Ishan Institute of Management & Technology, Greater Noida as a partial fulfillment of full time Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management.
UNDER GUIDENCE OF
DR. RAKESH SHARMA
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:Dr. D.K. GARG Ketan Kumar AgrawalCHAIRMAN ENR No. 14112IIMT, Greater Noida. Batch: 14th PGDBM
(MARKETING)
ISHAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT &TECHNOLOGY1A, KNOWLEDGE PARK - I, Greater Noida, Distt. GB Nagar (U.P)
Website: www.ishanfamily.com, E-Mail: [email protected]
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is the great pleasure to have this opportunity for the preparation of this project. We have highly
obliged by Ishan Institute of management & Technology for giving the opportunity of this dissertation.
I take the opportunity to express our gratitude to all of them, who in some or the other way helped us to
accomplish this project. A large number of individuals have contributed directly or indirectly in this
project. I am thankful to all of them for their help and encouragement.
I take an opportunity to acknowledge my indebted to Dr. D. K. Garg (Chairman, IIMT), Dean Sir
Prof. M.K. Verma, and all the staff of the PGDM department for making available all facilities in
fulfilling the requirement for the reasonable work.
I wish to acknowledge my thanks to my guide Dr. Rakesh Sharma for their valuable co-operation and
efforts for the preparation of this project.
Last but not least, We also very much thankful to our parents, brother and sisters for their continuous
encouragement and moral support during this project and other people who helped us in preparing this
project knowingly and unknowingly.
Date: - Ketan Kumar Agrawal
Place:- Enr No.- 14112
Batch: 14th PGDM
(Marketing)
2
DECLARATION
The final project report on “Study on pricing policies of medicines in pharmaceutical
companies” under guidance of Dr. Rakesh Sharma is the original work done by me. This is the
property of the Institute and use of this report without prior permission of the institute will be
considered illegal and actionable.
Date: Signature
Name: Ketan Kumar Agrawal
ENR No: 14112
Batch: PGDBM (MARKETING)
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE No.
CHAPTER-1- INTRODUCTION 6-39
Objective of study
Scope for pharmaceutical companies in India
Entry modes in Indian market for pharmaceutical companies
CHAPTER-2- MAJOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES IN INDIA 40-68
Domestic player
International player
CHAPTER-3- CATEGORIES OF MEDICINES 69-103
General drugs
Life saving drugs
Generic drugs
CHAPTER-4- PRICING POLICIES OF MEDICINES 104-145
Pricing strategy
Comparative analysis of pricing in different categories of medicine
CHAPTER-5- PRICE VARIATION IN POPULAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES-
A COMPARATIVE STUDY 146-165
CHAPTER-6- ROLE OF GOVERNMENT 166-210
Rules and regulation implemented by Government
Prohibited activities defined by the court and Government
CHAPTER-7- FACTOR AFFECTING PRICING OF MEDICINES 211-241
External factors
A) Government
B) Competitors
C) Contagious disease
CHAPTER-8- ETHICS AND PRICING RELATED TO LIFE SAVING
DRUGS 242-297
4
CHAPTER-9- 298-303
Limitation
Conclusion
Recommendation (if any)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 304-305
ANNEXURE 306-309
5
CHAPTER-1- INTRODUCTION Objective of study:
India's pharmaceutical industry has been growing at record levels in recent years but now has
unprecedented opportunities to expand in a number of fields. The domestic industry's long-
established position as a world leader in the production of high-quality generic medicines is set
to reap significant new benefits as the patents on a number of blockbuster drugs are scheduled to
expire over the next few years. In addition, more and more governments worldwide are seeking
to curb their soaring prescription drug costs through greater use of generics. These opportunities
are presenting themselves not only in India's traditional wealthy client markets such as the U.S.
and European Union nations but also in emerging economies with vast populations such as
Africa, South America, Asia, and Eastern and Central Europe.
In addition, India's long-established position as a preferred manufacturing location for
multinational drug manufacturers is quickly spreading into other areas of outsourcing activities.
Soaring costs of R&D and administration are persuading drug manufacturers to move more and
more of their discovery research and clinical trials activities to the subcontinent or to establish
administrative centers there, capitalizing on India's high levels of scientific expertise as well as
low wages.
Both multinational and local drug manufacturers could eventually benefit from the market
potential of India's population of over one billion. A large market will likely open up as the result
of a projected boom in health insurance, an area in which the country is currently woefully
underdeveloped. New government initiatives seek to enable the majority of the population to
access the life-saving drugs they need, while even greater opportunities may be presented by the
rise of the new Indian consumer. This group-urban, middle class and wealthy-live fast-paced,
Western-style lives and, as a result, they are beginning to suffer from Western, lifestyle-related
illnesses, for which they want, and can afford, innovative drug treatments.
This untapped domestic market is also highly attractive to the pharmaceutical MNCs, which
recently have returned to India in large numbers (many had left when the regime allowing
process patents only was introduced in the early 1970s). Now, MNCs and domestic companies
are starting to work together, utilizing each other's strengths for their mutual benefit. For the
foreign firms, this includes not only the Indian companies' research and manufacturing
6
capabilities and their much lower operational cost levels, but also comprehensive marketing and
distribution networks operating throughout India's vast territories.
There are, however, a number of uncertainties, particularly the effects of India's new product
patent system, which was introduced on January 1, 2005. Previously, only process patents were
granted, a situation that led to India's current role as a world leader in the production of high
quality, affordable generics. The new regime may spell the end for the domestic sector's smaller
players, while for others it could represent unprecedented opportunities.
Nevertheless, the domestic industry is still spending far too little on R&D, which must change
quickly if it is even to begin to address these new opportunities and challenges. On the
international front, the industry still has some catching up to do in terms of quality assurance
while, on the local market, pricing remains a problem. There is a need for regulatory reform in
India to encourage leading global players to continue and accelerate the outsourcing of their
R&D activities-beginning with discovery research-to the subcontinent. This is particularly urgent
in the face of the strong competition from India, where the government has been particularly
proactive in encouraging foreign investments in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.
In India, the industry is now awaiting developments following the January draft publication of
the government's National Pharmaceuticals Policy for 2006. The document contains proposals
for far-reaching initiatives aimed at boosting the domestic industry's global competitiveness, as
well as improving the population's access to medicines. Indian government ministers have also
promised MNCs concrete action soon on speeding the patent approval process and other crucial
issues, such as the definition of patentability and compulsory licensing. Action is required soon,
if India wants to be a significant player in the global pharmaceutical arena.
Characteristics of the pharmaceutical market
The single most important characteristic of the pharmaceutical sector is that it is perhaps the only
class of products in which the consumer – i.e. the patient – has virtually no choice that he/she can
meaningfully exercise. The decision on what medicine must be taken is made by the doctor or,
in some circumstances, the druggist/pharmacist. Thus, the normal dimensions of consumer
choice – product, price and quality – simply do not exist. The only available choice is whether to
take the prescribed medicine or not.
7
The ‘choice maker’ in this case, whether the doctor or the pharmacist, has no incentive to be
price-sensitive, and indeed may have perverse incentive structures. The doctor’s decision at the
most ethical level would be based on the best treatment of his/her patient, and he/she should
neither be expected to know or even care about the cost of treatment, except in cases where the
patient’s economic condition patently rules out a specific course of treatment. Even in such
situations, the choice is not likely to be between alternative brands of the same active
pharmaceutical ingredient (API), but between alternative APIs within the therapeutic category.
It is not reasonable to expect that the doctor will, or even should, be aware of the various brands
of the same API available in the market, let alone keep himself/herself updated on the market
prices of the huge range of formulations across the various therapeutic categories. In this
situation of limited information, it is rational to expect prescriptions to be driven by the
promotional efforts of the drug companies, whether ethical or not. Since the intensity of such
promotions is resource-driven, they are likely to be positively correlated to the price of the drug
or to the resource base of the company.
However, there is evidence that in India there is distinct market segmentation between different
brands of the same API, usually on a vocational basis, with prescription behavior in terms of
brand selection being driven by the economic status of the patients in the catchment area.
Although there is no rigorous research which conclusively proves a positive correlation between
average incomes and the price of the most commonly prescribed brand, there is sufficient
anecdotal evidence. This makes perfect economic sense since new companies coming into a
particular API are likely to position themselves to address a target population which has been
excluded by the incumbents. Indeed, there is also evidence that the same company may market
more than one brand of the same API at very different price points. This kind of behavior,
whether by incumbents or by new players, in essence transfers the bulk of the “consumer’s
surplus” to the producers or marketers.
This, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, since first of all it provides space for new entrants.
Second, it ensures that a drug is available to a much wider range of patients than would have
been the case if only a single price point were to be used in all markets across the country. The
available data suggests that the range of prices within which different brands of the same API are
8
currently marketed can be anywhere between 2:1 and 10:1. However, the downside is that such
segmentation can never be perfect, and consequently it may well be the case that a large number
of poor patients may be prescribed a drug which is either beyond their economic capacity or
therapeutically inferior. It is, therefore, of the highest importance that doctors are provided with
information support systems which will enable them to prescribe in the most case-sensitive
manner possible. Whether they do or not would of course depend upon their ethical standards,
but lack of information should not be the cause.
As far as the pharmacist is concerned, who is expected to know the prices of different brands, the
incentive structure is actually perverse since it is rational to push brands which have higher
margins. Even in the case where retail margins are fixed as percentage of the price, a higher
price will be associated with a higher absolute margin. Thus, controls on retail margins are
unlikely to serve the purpose of moderating prices, and may in fact push lower priced products
out of the market. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to drugs, and a retail margin-driven
marketing strategy has been effectively used in a range of products where quality differentiation
is an important factor in consumer choice. However, in most cases where consumer sovereignty
exists, such strategies tend to be short-lived since there is other equally, if not more, effective
ways of affecting consumer behavior. In the case of drugs, such alternatives are not available
and, therefore, there is a tendency for such strategies to be perpetuated for extended periods of
time.
Secondly, the prevailing system for drug certification is completely opaque as far as the
therapeutic quality and effectiveness of different brands are concerned, certainly for the patient
and also possibly for doctors. The Indian Pharmacopoeia (IP) certification, or its equivalent in
other countries, only attests to the quality of the API in most cases, and not to the ‘quality’ of the
formulation, which is what the patient actually purchases. In fact, the significance of the IP mark
is lost to all but the most discerning due to the lack of any active consumer awareness programe.
However, since different formulations of the same API are perceived to have different levels of
effectiveness, perhaps quite rightly since there are usually differences in the excipients or the
drug delivery technology, the lack of adequate information and awareness may lead to ‘adverse
selection’ behavior, whereby a higher price is associated with better ‘quality’. Active brand
promotion by the drug companies contributes to this process in no small measure, and the
government has done practically nothing in this regard. The introduction of good manufacturing
9
practices (GMP) through Schedule M is eminently desirable in itself as it addresses the issue of
consistency and assurance of quality. However, the level of regulatory enforcement of GMP
through intensive GMP audits as well as the level of competence of GMP inspectors varies
considerably in the country. Its main focus is also consistency rather than assurance of
therapeutic effectiveness.
The reduction in prices of drugs observed over time appears to arise partly from price
competition between alternative brands of the same API, but also from two other sources. First,
competition between alternative APIs within the same therapeutic category, whereby the
emergence of newer, more ‘effective’ alternatives force drug companies to reposition their older
products to cater to a lower income category. Second, growth in incomes can possibly change
the price elasticity of demand sufficiently to justify addressing a larger market segment by
lowering of prices. It should be noted, however, that the latter effect depends critically upon the
distribution of income growth between different income segments. In fact, if growth leads to an
increase in income disparities, drug prices may go up rather than down. In the Indian context,
for instance, historically there has been a reduction in income inequalities, which may have been
a major cause of the observed low drug prices in the country. In recent years, however, there is
evidence that the trend has changed, and income distributions are worsening. The rapid growth
in the size and incomes of the Indian middle-class in recent years permits significant increase in
drug prices without running into affordability and market size issues, which existed in the past.
The role of the introduction and diffusion of newer and better drugs as perhaps one of the prime
mover in lowering drug prices has implications which need to be considered carefully in the
Indian context. Until now, in the absence of product patents, new drugs could be introduced at
considerably lower prices, which then had strong knock-on effects on the prices of existing APIs
in the same therapeutic class. In the future, this process is likely to be much weaker since the
newer patented drugs should be expected to follow market skimming strategies, which has been
the trend in the rest of the world. Consequently, the prices of existing drugs may not experience
the kind of pressure as earlier unless the entry point price is pitched at an appropriate level.
Although drug companies are expected to be sensitive to price-income considerations prevailing
in the specific market, the likelihood of an affordable entry price will depend largely upon
whether the company concerned already has a significant presence in that particular therapeutic
category. In all probability, new APIs will be introduced by relatively large, multi-product firms,
10
which will not be inclined to poach on their existing client base and will, therefore, tend to
follow a high price-low volume approach, at least initially. This would be particularly true of
MNCs, which would have to be sensitive to their international reference price and third country
repercussions.
On the other hand, the impetus given to domestic research and development (R&D) by the
product patent regime may accelerate the pace of discovery and introduction of new molecules
by companies which do not need to worry about the international dimensions of their pricing
strategy, but this is likely to take time and cannot entirely be relied upon, since the innovator
may perceive the external market as being more important to his interest than the domestic.
Nevertheless, in this context, the processes for grant of patents and for drug approvals in the
country are of the highest importance, and it is necessary that these be streamlined to minimize
time delays. In fact, the immediate danger is that most Indian companies may come under severe
pressure and their resource availability for R&D may get eroded until such time as they
reconfigure their product portfolios. It is; therefore, important to ensure that the pricing and
marketing regime consciously takes into account both R&D needs as well as the transitional
arrangements that may be necessary.
The diffusion of new drugs, or even new formulations, is as important as their introduction, and
requires considerable expenditure in educating the medical fraternity about the product
characteristics and points of differentiation from existing alternatives. It is quite natural,
therefore, that the promotional expenditures of drug companies are significantly higher than that
of most other products, and which serve a very important function. However, there is a very thin
line between legitimate promotion, on the one hand, and market manipulation or anti-competitive
behavior, on the other.
It should be clear, therefore, that in the market for drugs and pharmaceuticals, consumer
sovereignty, which is at the heart of all competition-based policy, simply does not exist and the
role of price competition is, therefore, very limited indeed. In this respect, if no other, the
pharmaceuticals sector is completely different from practically all other commodities, and thus
the strategies and policies normally used to promote industrial activity in other sectors simply do
not apply in this context. It is little wonder then that almost all countries, at one time or another,
have found overt price controls to be the most attractive, and indeed the most effective, method
for ensuring the availability of drugs at affordable prices. There is no doubt that a well designed
11
price control mechanism can not only moderate the prices of critical drugs, but actually increase
their supply as well. Nevertheless, price controls appear to have fallen out of favor in recent
years due to the increasing complexity of the pharmaceuticals sector and the need to provide
drug companies the flexibility to meet emerging market challenges.
However, it needs to be recognized that intense competition in the Indian Pharma sector, which
is basically multi-source in nature, has in the past responded to the general paying capacity of
Indian population, with the consequence that the prices of drugs manufactured and marketed in
India have remained among the lowest in the world. Although this may change in the coming
years, for reasons that have already been discussed in the preceding chapter, the strategy to
moderate drug prices in the country would have to take cognizance of this fact.
Comparison with the U.S.
The Indian biotech sector parallels that of the U.S. in many ways. Both are filled with small start-
ups while the majority of the market is controlled by a few powerful companies. Both are
dependent upon government grants and venture capitalists for funding because neither will be
commercially viable for years. Pharmaceutical companies in both countries have recognized the
potential effect that biotechnology could have on their pipelines and have responded by either
investing in existing start-ups or venturing into the field themselves. In both India and the U.S.,
as well as in much of the globe, biotech is seen as a hot field with a lot of growth potential.
Developing the Domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Market
Satish Reddy of Dr Reddy's Laboratories applauds the government's draft National
Pharmaceutical Policy for 2006's provisions on increasing access to treatments for life
threatening
Diseases, but points out those Western lifestyle diseases are currently providing the major
growth in the domestic market.
India currently spends 4.5 to 5.0 percent of its GDP on health care, but public spending accounts
for just 0.9 percent, putting the nation among the 20 lowest-spending countries worldwide. Total
health expenditures were $29.3 billion in 2004, with around 83 percent accounted for by private
providers. The balance of spending is also iniquitous; while the poorest 20 percent of the
population has double the mortality rates, malnutrition and fertility of the richest quintile, the
latter group receives about three rupees for every one rupee spent on the former. Two-thirds of
12
what the government spends on health care goes to secondary and tertiary care rather than basic
services. Ninety-four percent of all private health spending is out of pocket, mostly at the time of
the incident, and more than 40 percent of hospitalized people borrow money or sell assets in
order to cover their expenses. The remaining 6 percent of spending is provided by insurance -3.7
percent social, 1.6 percent employer-sponsored and 0.7 percent private insurance. Just 15 percent
of the population has some form of insurance; an estimated 800,000,000 people in India have
none. The health insurance market was opened up to the private sector in 2000 and, since then,
growth has been fast, with nearly 10.3 million policies sold in 2003-04 compared to 7.5 million
in 2001-02. A 40 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is forecast for the health
insurance sector over the coming years, making it a significant driver of the domestic health care
market, which analysts at McKinsey believe could be worth $40 billion by 2012.
National health policy goals By
Achieve zero growth of HIV/AIDS 2007
Eliminate kalar-azar 2010
Reduce by 50 percent mortality due to TB, malaria and other
vector- and water-borne diseases 2010
Reduce prevalence of blindness to 0.5 percent 2010
Source: Sustaining Health with Innovative R&D and Health Infrastructure; presentation for the
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH) in New
Delhi, India, November 4, 2004
Rising levels of population and incomes, plus the arrival of new products, will continue to grow
the domestic market around 10 percent a year, but there will be no dramatic change unless there
is help to improve people's access drugs, Pankaj Patel of Zydus Cadila says.
In 2003, medicines accounted for just 15 percent of India's total health care spend and patented
drugs currently represent fewer than 5 percent of the national market. The prices of essential
drugs in India are among the world's lowest, with market growth coming mainly from volume in
urban markets. Turning to the domestic market, Ranjit Shahani of Novartis India says the
forthcoming privatization of health insurance and India's fast-growing middle class will certainly
boost consumption. India's fastest-growing product segments last year were for lifestyle-related
diseases and the MNCs can produce innovative, patented treatments for these conditions, as well
as develop treatments for developing-world diseases such as malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS.
13
Novartis's own Institute of Tropical Diseases in Singapore, where such research is being done,
should have been sited in India, Shahani says, but the timing was wrong-before the Patent Act
was passed. He feels that Novartis is unlikely to bring such research to India soon, although in
February 2006 the firm opened a global R&D centre for OTC medicines at Thane, on the
outskirts of Mumbai.
Ranjit Shahani applauds the National Pharmaceuticals Policy's proposal of public/private
partnerships (PPPs) to tackle life-threatening diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS, but stresses
that, in order for them to work, they should be voluntary, and the government should exempt all
life-saving drugs from import duties and other taxes such as excise duty and VAT. He is,
however, critical about a proposal for mandatory price negotiation of newly patented drugs. He
feels this will erode India's credibility in implementing the Patent Act in a fair and transparent
manner. To deal with diabetes, medicines are not the only answer; awareness about the need for
lifestyle changes needs to be increased, he adds. While industry leaders have long called for the
development of PPPs for the provision of health care in India, particularly in rural areas, such
initiatives are currently totally unexplored.
However, the government's 2006 draft National Pharmaceuticals Policy proposes the
introduction of PPPs with drug manufacturers and hospitals as a way of vastly increasing the
availability of medicines to treat life-threatening diseases. It notes, for example, that while an
average estimate of the value of drugs to treat the country's cancer patients is $1.11 billion, the
market is in fact worth only $33.5 million. “The big gap indicates the near non-accessibility of
the medicines to a vast majority of the affected population, mainly because of the high cost of
these medicines,” says the Policy, which also calls for tax and excise exemptions for anti-cancer
drugs.
Another area for which PPPs are proposed is for drugs to treat HIV/AIDS, India's biggest health
problem. Official estimates put the number of Indians living with the disease at 5.1 million in
2003, with up to 40 percent being women and children, but others say the total is closer to 8
million.50 Moreover, of the world's 150 million diabetic population, 33 million are in India.
Among the Policy's other proposals are a 2 percent tax that would generate an estimated $1.45
billion a year to provide free medicines under health insurance schemes for the poorest Indians
and also establish at least 25 “pharma parks” over the next five years: a prenegotiation pricing
mechanism for patented drugs; reduced prices for bulk public drugs purchases; promoting
14
generics by removing them from the price control regime; ceiling prices for 314 drugs to be fixed
based on the weighted average price of the top three brands of each product by value at April 1,
2005; rebranding of prescription drugs with clear evidence of market dominance, defined as a
market share over 70 percent; halving excise duty on all medicines from 16 percent to 8 percent;
a 15 to 35 percent cap to be introduced on the wholesale and retail trade margins of unbranded
drugs that are not price controlled: the annual revision of the list of essential drugs; and moves to
strengthen the drug regulatory system and computerize the National Pharmaceutical Pricing
Authority. The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers is also reported to be estimating production
costs for 374 essential drugs, so that their prices can be fixed, and drawing up a list of life-saving
drugs that could be brought under price control. Many of the measures intended by the
government contradict the industry's wishes for further deregulation of the Indian pharmaceutical
market. The challenge remains to provide access to life-threatening diseases and, at the same
time, create price incentives for the R&D investments.
Scope for pharmaceutical companies in India:
The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry today is in the front rank of India’s science-based industries
with wide ranging capabilities in the complex field of drug manufacture and technology. A
highly organized sector, the Indian Pharma Industry is estimated to be worth $ 4.5 billion,
growing at about 8 to 9 percent annually. It ranks very high in the third world, in terms of
technology, quality and range of medicines manufactured. From simple headache pills to
sophisticated antibiotics and complex cardiac compounds, almost every type of medicine is now
made indigenously.
Playing a key role in promoting and sustaining development in the vital field of medicines,
Indian Pharma Industry boasts of quality producers and many units approved by regulatory
authorities in USA and UK. International companies associated with this sector have stimulated,
assisted and spearheaded this dynamic development in the past 53 years and helped to put India
on the pharmaceutical map of the world.
The Indian Pharmaceutical sector is highly fragmented with more than 20,000 registered units. It
has expanded drastically in the last two decades. The leading 250 pharmaceutical companies
control 70% of the market with market leader holding nearly 7% of the market share. It is an
extremely fragmented market with severe price competition and government price control.
15
The pharmaceutical industry in India meets around 70% of the country's demand for bulk drugs,
drug intermediates, pharmaceutical formulations, chemicals, tablets, capsules, orals and
injectibles. There are about 250 large units and about 8000 Small Scale Units, which form the
core of the pharmaceutical industry in India (including 5 Central Public Sector Units). These
units produce the complete range of pharmaceutical formulations, i.e., medicines ready for
consumption by patients and about 350 bulk drugs, i.e., chemicals having therapeutic value and
used for production of pharmaceutical formulations.
Following the de-licensing of the pharmaceutical industry, industrial licensing for most of the
drugs and pharmaceutical products has been done away with. Manufacturers are free to produce
any drug duly approved by the Drug Control Authority. Technologically strong and totally self-
reliant, the pharmaceutical industry in India has low costs of production, low R&D costs,
innovative scientific manpower, strength of national laboratories and an increasing balance of
trade. The Pharmaceutical Industry, with its rich scientific talents and research capabilities,
supported by Intellectual Property Protection regime is well set to take on the international
market.
India currently represents just U.S. $6 billion of the $550 billion global pharmaceutical industry
but its share is increasing at 10 percent a year, compared to 7 percent annual growth for the
world market overall. Also, while the Indian sector represents just 8 percent of the global
industry total by volume, putting it in fourth place worldwide, it accounts for 13 percent by
value, and its drug exports have been growing 30 percent annually. The “organized” sector of
India's pharmaceutical industry consists of 250 to 300 companies, which account for 70 percent
of products on the market, with the top 10 firms representing 30 percent. However, the total
sector is estimated at nearly 20,000 businesses, some of which are extremely small.
Approximately 75 percent of India's demand for medicines is met by local manufacturing.
According to the German Chemicals Association, in 2005, India's top 10 pharmaceutical
companies were Ranbaxy, Cipla, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Lupin, Nicolas Piramal, Aurobindo
Pharma, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Wockhardt Ltd. and Aventis Pharma. Indian-
owned firms currently account for 70 percent of the domestic market, up from less than 20
percent in 1970. In 2005, nine of the top 10 companies in India were domestically owned,
compared with just four in 1994. India's potential to further boost its already-leading role in
global generics production, as well as an offshore location of choice for multinational drug
16
manufacturers seeking to curb the increasing costs of their manufacturing, R&D and other
support services, presents an opportunity worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
THE GROWTH SCENARIO
India's US$ 3.1 billion pharmaceutical industry is growing at the rate of 14 percent per year. It is
one of the largest and most advanced among the developing countries.
Over 20,000 registered pharmaceutical manufacturers exist in the country. The domestic
pharmaceuticals industry output is expected to exceed Rs260 billion in the financial year 2002,
which accounts for merely 1.3% of the global pharmaceutical sector. Of this, bulk drugs will
account for Rs 54 bn (21%) and formulations, the remaining Rs 210 bn (79%). In financial year
2001, imports were Rs 20 bn while exports were Rs87 bn.
Statistics
In 2002, over 20,000 registered drug manufacturers in India sold $9 billion worth of formulations
and bulk drugs. 85% of these formulations were sold in India while over 60% of the bulk drugs
were exported, mostly to the United States and Russia. Most of the players in the market are
small-to-medium enterprises; 250 of the largest companies control 70% of the Indian market.
Thanks to the 1970 Patent Act, multinationals represent only 35% of the market, down from 70%
thirty years ago.
Most pharma companies operating in India, even the multinationals, employ Indians almost
exclusively from the lowest ranks to high level management. Mirroring the social structure, firms
are very hierarchical. Homegrown pharmaceuticals, like many other businesses in India, are
often a mix of public and private enterprise. Although many of these companies are publicly
owned, leadership passes from father to son and the founding family holds a majority share.
In terms of the global market, India currently holds a modest 1-2% share, but it has been growing
at approximately 10% per year. India gained its foothold on the global scene with its
innovatively-engineered generic drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), and it is now
seeking to become a major player in outsourced clinical research as well as contract
manufacturing and research. There are 74 U.S. FDA-approved manufacturing facilities in India,
more than in any other country outside the U.S, and in 2005, almost 20% of all Abbreviated New
17
Drug Applications (ANDA) to the FDA are expected to be filed by Indian companies. Growth in
other fields notwithstanding, generics are still a large part of the picture. London research
company Global Insight estimates that India’s share of the global generics market will have risen
from 4% to 33% by 2007.
ADVANTAGE INDIA
Competent workforce: India has a pool of personnel with high managerial and technical
competence as also skilled workforce. It has an educated work force and English is commonly
used. Professional services are easily available.
Cost-effective chemical synthesis: Its track record of development, particularly in the area of
improved cost-beneficial chemical synthesis for various drug molecules is excellent. It provides
a wide variety of bulk drugs and exports sophisticated bulk drugs.
Legal & Financial Framework: India has a 53 year old democracy and hence has a solid legal
framework and strong financial markets. There is already an established international industry
and business community.
Information & Technology: It has a good network of world-class educational institutions and
established strengths in Information Technology.
Globalization: The country is committed to a free market economy and globalization. Above all,
it has a 70 million middle class market, which is continuously growing.
Consolidation: For the first time in many years, the international pharmaceutical industry is
finding great opportunities in India. The process of consolidation, which has become a
generalized phenomenon in the world pharmaceutical industry, has started taking place in India.
Patents:
As it expands its core business, the industry is being forced to adapt its business model to recent
changes in the operating environment. The first and most significant change was the January 1,
2005 enactment of an amendment to India’s patent law that reinstated product patents for the
first time since 1972. The legislation took effect on the deadline set by the WTO’s Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which mandated patent protection on
both products and processes for a period of 20 years. Under this new law, India will be forced to
recognize not only new patents but also any patents filed after January 1, 1995. Indian companies
achieved their status in the domestic market by breaking these product patents, and it is estimated
18
that within the next few years, they will lose $650 million of the local generics market to rightful
patent-holders.
In the domestic market, this new patent legislation has resulted in fairly clear segmentation. The
multinationals narrowed their focus onto high-end patients who make up only 12% of the
market, taking advantage of their newly-bestowed patent protection. Meanwhile, Indian firms
have chosen to take their existing product portfolios and target semi-urban and rural populations.
Product development:
Companies are also starting to adapt their product development processes to the new
environment. For years, firms have made their ways into the global market by researching
generic competitors to patented drugs and following up with litigation to challenge the patent.
This approach remains untouched by the new patent regime and looks to increase in the future.
However, those that can afford it have set their sights on an even higher goal: new molecule
discovery. Although the initial investment is huge, companies are lured by the promise of hefty
profit margins and the recognition as a legitimate competitor in the global industry. Local firms
have slowly been investing more money into their R&D programs or have formed alliances to
tap into these opportunities.
Small and medium enterprises:
As promising as the future is for a whole, the outlook for small and medium enterprises (SME) is
not as bright. The excise structure changed so that companies now have to pay a 16% tax on the
maximum retail price (MRP) of their products, as opposed to on the ex-factory price.
Consequently, larger companies are cutting back on outsourcing and what business is left is
shifting to companies with facilities in the four tax-free states - Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &
Kashmir, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand.
As SMEs wrestled with the tax structure, they were also scrambling to meet the July 1 deadline
for compliance with the revised Schedule M Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). While this
should be beneficial to consumers and the industry at large, SMEs have been finding it difficult
to find the funds to upgrade their manufacturing plants, resulting in the closure of many
facilities. Others invested the money to bring their facilities to compliance, but these operations
19
were located in non-tax-free states, making it difficult to compete in the wake of the new excise
tax.
Over-the-Counter Medicines
The Indian market for over-the-counter medicines (OTCs) is worth about $940 million and is
growing 20 percent a year, or double the rate for prescription medicines. The government is keen
to widen the availability of OTCs to outlets other than pharmacies, and the Organization of
Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI) has called for them to be sold in post offices.
Developing an innovative new drug, from discovery to worldwide marketing, now involves
investments of around $1 billion, and the global industry's profitability is under constant attack
as costs continue to rise and prices come under pressure. Pharmaceutical production costs are
almost 50 percent lower in India than in Western nations, while overall R&D costs are about
one-eighth and clinical trial expenses around one-tenth of Western levels. India's long-
established manufacturing base also offers a large, well-educated, and English-speaking
Workforce, with 700,000 scientists and engineers graduating every year, including 122,000
chemists and chemical engineers, with 1,500 PhDs. The industry provides the highest intellectual
capital per dollar worldwide, says OPPI.
India’s top 10 branded drugs 2004:
Corex (chlorpheniramine maleate, codeine phosphate)
Human Mixtard (insulin)
Voveran (diclofenac sodium)
Becosules (vitamin B complex, vitamin C)
Taxim (cefotaxime)
Asthalin (salbutamol)
Sporidex (cephalexin)
Digene (aluminium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide)
Betnesol (betamethasone)
Althrocin (erythromycin)
India's largest-selling drug products are antibiotics, but the fastest growing are diabetes,
cardiovascular and central nervous system treatments.
Source: OPPI, 2004
20
The industry's exports were worth more than $3.75 billion in 2004-05 and they have been
growing at a compound annual rate of 22.7 percent over the last few years, according to the
government's draft National Pharmaceuticals Policy for 2006, published in January 2006. The
Policy estimates that, by the year 2010, the industry has the potential to achieve $22.40 billion in
formulations, with bulk drug production going up from $1.79 billion to $5.60 billion: “India's
rich human capital is believed to be the strongest asset for this knowledge-led industry. Various
studies show that the scientific talent pool of 4 million Indians is the second-largest English-
speaking group worldwide, after the USA.”
The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry in 2004
Turnover: $6.02 billion, up 6.4 percent year over year
Exports: $3.72 billion
Imports: $985.3 million
Bulk drug production: $2.10 billion, with over 400 bulk drugs produced. Over 60,000
formulations produced, in 60 therapeutic categories
Capital investment: up 14.8 percent to $1.16 billion
Employment: 5 million direct, 24 million indirect
Source: OPPI, 2004
VAT
In April 2005, the government introduced value-added tax for the first time and abolished all
other taxes derived from sales of goods. So far, 22 states have implemented VAT, which is set at
4 percent for medicines. This led to pharmaceutical wholesalers and retailers cutting their stocks
dramatically, which severely affected drug manufacturers' sales for several months.
Corex (chlorpheniramine maleate, codeine phosphate)
Human Mixtard (insulin)
Voveran (diclofenac sodium)
Becosules (vitamin B complex, vitamin C)
Taxim (cefotaxime)
Asthalin (salbutamol)
Sporidex (cephalexin)
Digene (aluminium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide)
Betnesol (betamethasone)
21
Althrocin (erythromycin)
Opportunities:
The main opportunities for the Indian pharmaceutical industry are in the areas of:
• generics (including biotechnology generics)
• biotechnology
• outsourcing (including contract manufacturing and R&D outsourcing).
Generics
Prescription drugs worth $40 billion in the U.S. and $25 billion in Europe are due to lose patent
protection by 2007-08. Indian firms will likely take around 30 percent of the increasing global
generics market, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham)
forecast. Currently, the Indian industry is estimated to account for 22 percent of the generics
world market. Low production costs give India an edge over other generics-producing nations,
especially India and Israel, says Assocham's president Mahendra Sanghi. He suggests that it will
be easier for Indian firms to win larger generics market shares overseas than at home,
particularly in the U.S. and Europe. Indian drug manufacturers currently export their products to
more than 65 countries worldwide. Their largest customer is the U.S., the world's biggest
pharmaceutical market. The use of generic drugs is growing quickly in the U.S. due to cost
pressure by payers and the introduction on January 1 this year of the Medicare Part D
prescription benefit, giving seniors and people with disabilities prescription drug coverage for
the first time. With 74 facilities, India has the largest number of U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)- approved drug manufacturing facilities outside the U.S. Indian firms now
account for 35 percent of Drug Master File applications and one in four of all U.S. Abbreviated
New Drug Application (ANDA) filings submitted to the FDA. Analysts at Credit Lyonnais
Securities Asia say they expect the number of generic drug launches by Indian companies in the
U.S. to increase from 93 in 2003 to over 250 by 2008.
In January 2006, the Indian exporters' representative body, the Pharma Export Promotion
Council (Pharmexcil) said it planned to raise a number of concerns with the U.S. government
over what it sees as barriers to trade with them. One is a U.S. regulation that disqualifies Indian
firms from bidding for government contracts, and another is the requirement Indian drug
manufacturers submit separate applications for each U.S. state (there is no U.S.-wide regulatory
requirement), even when the firms have FDA-approved products and facilities.
22
Table-1 ANDA Filings for Indian Mid-sized Companies
Company FY04 FY05 FY06Glenmark
Glenmark-- 7 14
Zydus Cadila
12 13 6-18
Orchid-- 18 18-30
Wockhardt5 7 12-13
Aurobindo2 22 3
Source: Cygnus Consulting & Research. Industry Insights-Pharmaceuticals, November 2004 2006However, India's traditional lucrative export markets may be becoming a little less secure, for a
number of reasons. For example, generic prices have not been rising in the U.S.; the seniors'
advocacy group AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) says that, of the
75 generic drugs widely used by older people that it monitors on a quarterly basis, none had had
a change in manufacturer list price during third quarter 2005 and only three had had increases in
list price at any time during January to September 2005.18 Also, new competitive threats have
arrived, such as authorized generics produced by major drug producers, new mid-sized players,
Indian and Eastern Europe manufacturers, and fully integrated generics firms, which are less
reliant on Indian “back-end” businesses.
The U.S. continues to be an attractive market for Indian firms, despite the challenges of price
erosion and the launch of “authorized generics” by innovator companies, says Ranjit Shahani,
vice chairman and managing director, Novartis India Ltd, and President of the Organization of
Pharmaceutical Producers of India. He does not see any increase in nontariff barriers there, and
in fact feels that trade between India and the U.S. is “set to rev up following President George
W. Bush's visit to India on March 1, 2006, with both countries going all out to liberalize market
access.” The major concern of the U.S. FDA appears to be the entry of counterfeit drugs, he says,
but he does not believe this to be an obstacle for reputable Indian manufacturers. Moreover,
while the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property rights (TRIPs) national emergency/compulsory license agreement presents an exporting
23
opportunity for Indian firms, Shahani stresses that the firms must have anti-diversion measures in
place in order to protect their reputation.
“The European generics market,” he says, pointing to Dr Reddy's recent acquisition of
Betapharm of Germany for $570 million, “holds more promise.” Indian companies have acquired
over $1 billion worth of pharmaceutical companies overseas in the past year and a half and
should increasingly look more aggressively at countries like Brazil, Russia and the
Commonwealth of Independent States, and Japan, where the markets are mature and
remunerative, despite some regulatory hurdles, he notes. Also, he says, Indian firms should move
up the value chain to produce innovative “super generics” as the once-a-day Ciprofloxacin
product developed by Ranbaxy and licensed to Bayer, move up from producing “generic
generics” to branded generics.
Relationship between pharmaceuticals and biotechnology
Unlike in other countries, the divide between biotechnology and pharmaceuticals remains fairly
defined in India. Biotech there still plays the role of pharma’s little sister, but many outsiders
have high expectations for the future. India accounted for 2% of the $41 billion global biotech
market and in 2003 was ranked 3rd in the Asia-Pacific region and 11th in the world in number of
biotechs. In 2004-5, the Indian biotech industry saw its revenues grow 37% to $1.1 billion. The
Indian biotech market is dominated by biopharmaceuticals; 75% of 2004-5 revenues came from
biopharmaceuticals, which saw 30% growth last year. Of the revenues from biopharmaceuticals,
vaccines led the way, comprising 47% of sales. Biologics and large-molecule drugs tend to be
more expensive than small-molecule drugs, and India hopes to sweep the market in biogenerics
and contract manufacturing as drugs go off patent and Indian companies upgrade their
manufacturing capabilities.
Biotechnology statistics
Most companies in the biotech sector are extremely small, with only two firms breaking 100
million dollars in revenues. At last count there were 265 firms registered in India, over 75% of
which were incorporated in the last five years. The newness of the companies explains the
industry’s high consolidation in both physical and financial terms. Almost 50% of all biotechs
are in or around Bangalore, and the top ten companies capture 47% of the market. The top five
24
companies were homegrown; Indian firms account for 62% of the biopharma sector and 52% of
the industry as a whole. The Association of Biotechnology-Led Enterprises (ABLE) is aiming to
grow the industry to $5 billion in revenues generated by 1 million employees by 2009, and data
from the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) seem to suggest that it is possible.
Biotechnology Generics
Firms based in India and India could be among the first to bring biogenerics (generic versions of
biological products) to the regulated markets and faster than expected. The first biogeneric
product was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) which refers to these
products as “bio similar,” in April 2006. IMS estimates that biotechnology products accounted
for 10 percent of global pharmaceutical sales in 2004, or about $55 billion in worldwide sales for
the year.19 By 2003, the U.S. accounted for 62 percent of the global biotech drugs market, while
in that year Japan's share of the total had fallen to 7 percent from 28 percent in 1994.20 Patents
on the first generation of blockbuster biopharmaceuticals are beginning to expire, and the high
cost of these products means the generic versions will find large markets among hard-pressed
governments and other payers. Sales of biogenerics are flourishing in the unregulated markets.
The only regulated-market approvals so far are in Australia, granted in October 2004 for the
recombinant DNA growth hormone Omni trope, manufactured by Sandoz, as well as in the EU,
granted in April 2006. No U.S. approvals are likely until 2009, says market research company
Data monitor. The company has identified six key product classes-insulin, human growth factor,
epoetin, colony stimulating factors (CSFs), interferon alpha and interferon beta-as being at risk
from biogeneric versions of these products and estimates that global sales of the latter should
total over $2 billion by 2010. An early beneficiary when the regulated markets finally establish
frameworks for biogenerics is likely to be Wockhardt. This pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company was one of the first Indian drug manufacturers to enter the European market, achieving
this through a series of acquisitions; it now has three subsidiaries in Europe, acquiring first The
Wallis Laboratory in 1997 and CP Pharmaceuticals in 2003, both in the UK, then Esparma of
Germany in 2004. Biopharmaceuticals are central to Workhardt's growth strategy, and the firm
expects this area of its business to take off in 2006. Reporting at the end of December 2005, it
says it has more than 55 registrations for biopharmaceuticals pending, and 26 approvals in 18
25
countries. According to analysts at SSKI India, Wockhardt is one of the few players in India, and
even globally, to have the requisite capabilities in biogenerics production. Export Import Bank
Chairman T.C. Venkat Subramanian believes the patent expires on 11 major drugs this year
could help bring a “biotechnology revolution” to India. He
forecasts that biotechnology could potentially generate revenues of $5 billion and create one
million jobs by 2010, through products and services.
Biotechnology
In 2003-04, biopharmaceuticals accounted for 60 percent of India's total biotechnology market,
which was worth an estimated $709 million-up 39 percent over the previous period. Investment
in the sector was up 26 percent to $137 million-and exports accounted for 56 percent of industry
revenues. The domestic biopharmaceuticals sector grew 38.5 percent and had the largest local
market share, at 76 percent, followed by bioagriculture at 8.4 percent, bioservices at 7.7 percent,
and industrial products at 5.5 percent and bio-informatics at 2.5 percent. With 200 biotech
companies and total revenues of $500 million annually, India's biotechnology sector is still in the
relatively early stages of development. However, it is growing fast, with an initial emphasis on
vaccines and bioservices. The industry is situated mainly in Karnataka, although there are
operations in Andra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Kerala, Maharashtra and West Bengal. The top 10
players in terms of revenues in 2004 were Biocon, Serum Institute of India, Panacea Biotec,
Nicholas Piramal, Novo Nordisk, Venkateshwara Hatcheries, Wockhardt, GSK, Bharat Serums
& Vaccines, and Eli Lilly & Co, reports Burrill & Co, the U.S.-based life sciences merchant
bank. As is generally the case worldwide, most biotech companies in India have developed along
the contract or collaborative research models.
Discussing the development of the domestic biotechnology market, Ranjit Shahani of Novartis
India points out that, globally, most small and medium-sized biotech enterprises are acquired by
MNCs as the quickest route into this market, and India is no exception. Government incentives
are important, particularly in terms of regulatory reforms, tax incentives for R&D, the
development of biotechnology parks and Special Economic Zones, etc. While India's 2005
Biotech Policy should spur investment, U.S.-style industry-academia partnerships and cluster
models are worth emulating. To this end, he says, India's February 28, 2006, National Budget
26
was a disappointment for the pharmaceutical industry, as it offers very little in the way of
incentives for R&D, which is becoming increasingly important in the post-IPR regime.
In a report published last September, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) pointed to a current lack of focus on biotechnology in India, due in part to
a lack of consensus on a definition, and also that the large number of government agencies that
deal with biotechnology have led to a duplication of research funding and poor coordination.
This needs to be addressed urgently, said the report, which also called for initiatives to attract
India's best scientists back to the country, and more support for small and medium-sized
enterprises to enable them to face competition from the MNCs. Observers also warn that India's
nascent biotechnology sector could face particularly strong competition from India, the only
developing country to participate in the international Human Genome Project. Also, massive
levels of state investment mean Indian firms are now producing hepatitis vaccines, recombinant
insulin, interferon and other generic therapeutic biologics. As is the case throughout the industry,
India is regarded as having the edge over India in terms of qualified, English-speaking
employees, intellectual property rights, and judicial and quality standards. However, if India does
emerge as the dominant biotechnology player, this could have very serious implications for
India.
Challenges
The biotech sector faces some major challenges in its quest for growth. Chief among them is a
lack of funding, particularly for firms that are just starting out. The most likely sources of funds
are government grants and venture capital, which is a relatively young industry in India.
Government grants are difficult to secure, and due to the expensive and uncertain nature of
biotech research, venture capitalists are reluctant to invest in firms that have not yet developed a
commercially viable product. As previously mentioned, India hopes to solve its funding problem
by attracting overseas investors and partners. Before these potential saviors will invest
significant sums in the industry, however, there needs to be better scientific and financial
accountability. India is slowly working towards these goals, but it will be a while before they are
up to the standards of Western investors.
India’s biotech firms share another problem with their pharmaceutical cousins: a lack of
qualified employees. Biotech has the additional disadvantage of competing against IT for
27
ambitious, science-minded students but not being able to guarantee the same compensation. An
aspiring researcher in India needs 7–10 years of education covering a range of specialties in
order to qualify to work in biotech. Even if a student does choose to go on the biotech path, the
ineffectual curriculum at many universities makes it doubtful as to whether he will be qualified
to work in the field once finished. One estimate shows that 10% of upper-echelon biotech
recruits have come from foreign countries. While this is not a problem, per se, it drives up cost in
a country whose competitive advantage is based on cheap, high-quality labor. Far from ending
with scientists, there is also a shortage of people with a knowledge of biotechnology in related
fields: doctors, lawyers, programmers, marketing personnel and others.
While little has been done about the latter half of the employee crunch, the government has
addressed the problem of educated but unqualified candidates in its Draft National Biotech
Development Strategy. This plan included a proposal to create a National Task Force that would
work with the biotech industry to revise the curriculum for undergraduate and graduate study in
life sciences and biotechnology. The government’s strategy also stated intentions to increase the
number of PhD Fellowships awarded by the Department of Biotechnology to 200 per year. These
human resources will be further leveraged with a “Bio-Edu-Grid” that will knit together the
resources of the academic and scientific industrial communities, much as they are in the U.S.
Outsourcing
Contract Manufacturing
The global pharmaceutical market was estimated to represent a $48 billion opportunity for India
by 2007, in terms of:
• manufacturing outsourcing-supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and
intermediates
• development outsourcing-conducting preclinical and clinical trials
• customized chemistry services-contract research services for compounds pre-launch.
Worldwide revenues for pharmaceutical industry contract manufacturing and research services
(CRAMS) totaled $100 billion in 2004 and will grow at an average annual rate of 10.8 percent to
reach $168 billion by 2009, say analysts at Frost & Sullivan. Within this total, the global market
for contract manufacturing of prescription drugs is estimated to increase from a value of $26.2
28
billion to $43.9 billion, although the over-the-counter medicines and nutritional products sector
will show the fastest growth. The Asian region has recently been challenging North America and
Europe's traditional domination of the global pharmaceutical contract manufacturing market:
India and India could potentially account for 35 percent to 40 percent of the outsourced market
share for active pharmaceutical ingredients, finished dosage formulations and intermediates.
Indian Company International Partner Outsourced Products
Cadila Healthcare Altana Two intermediates for Altana's
under-patent molecule
Protonix(pantoprazole)
Hikal Limited Degussa Hikal has signed an agreement
with Degussa for supplying
pharmaceutical intermediates
and active pharmaceutical
ingredients
Nicholas Piramal AMO Neutralizing tablets and sterile
FFS packs (product names not
disclosed)
Nicholas Piramal Allergan APIs for Levobunolol
(Betagen) and Brimonidine
(Alphagan and Alphagan - D)
Nicholas Piramal Pfizer 7-year agreement relating to
R&D services under which
Nicholas Piramalwill provide
process development and scale
up services to Pfizer's animal
health division from the
latter's facilities in India
29
Dishman Pharma Solvay 6 projects; the main one being
for starting material and
advanced intermediate for
Tevetan (eprosartan maleate)
Dishman Pharma AstraZeneca Intermediate for Nexium
(esomeprazole)
Dishman Pharma Merck Intermediate for Losartan (to
be supplied to its contract
manufacturer in Japan)
Shasun Chemicals GlaxoSmithKline Ranitidine API
Shasun Chemicals Eli Lilly Nizatidine, metohexital and
cycloserine APIs
Source: Citigroup Analyst Report, October 10, 2005.Indian successes in this area have already created some significant international developments.
For example, last year, Jubilant Organosys, which has the largest, CRAMS business in India,
acquired Target Research Associates plus 64 percent of Trinity Laboratories and its wholly
owned subsidiary Trigen Labs, all U.S.-based firms. Another large Indian firm, Bilcare Ltd,
acquired its first manufacturing facility in the U.S. last year, with the purchase of
Philadelphia-based preclinical Inc.
Contract Research
Ajay Piramal, chairman and managing director of Nicholas Piramal, expects to see significant
growth in India's custom manufacturing business, as a result of high and rising costs to
innovative manufacturers in Europe and the U.S., and also forecasts that there will be a growing
number of collaborations between Indian and foreign firms in the domestic market, especially
involving the biotechnology sector, in a wide variety of areas such as collaborative R&D
(including drug discovery and clinical trials), co-marketing and manufacturing. India and India's
30
drug outsourcing discovery markets combined are currently worth around $7.3 billion and,
driven by government initiatives to diversify the drug discovery portfolio and develop
infrastructure, are set to reach $19.8 billion in 2011, say analysts at Frost & Sullivan.
In September 2004, a global innovation survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit identified
India as an R&D “hotspot,” defined as a place where
(1) companies are able to tap into existing scientific and technical expertise networks,
(2) there are good links to academic research facilities,
(3) the environment supports innovation and
(4) it is easy to commercialize.
Costs of pharmaceutical innovation in India are estimated as low as one-seventh of their levels in
Europe, and the country's clinical research industry is currently worth $100 million and growing
around 40 to 50 percent annually.
Examples of R&D Inward Investments
• AstraZeneca is conducting research into tuberculosis (TB) at the AstraZeneca Research
Foundation India in Bangalore. India's estimated 8.5 million TB patients mean clinical trials can
be conducted easily and economically. Although the revenue potential for anti-TB drugs is
limited as the disease mainly affects poorer nations, the reduced research costs of developing the
drug in India and the goodwill associated with helping to eradicate a major disease in developing
countries still present a good business opportunity for AstraZeneca.
• GSK and Ranbaxy have set up an early-stage partnership in drug research, under which GSK
will provide the Indian firm with leads, Ranbaxy will conduct lead optimization and animal
trials, and GSK will take the drug through human trials. GSK will have exclusive rights to sell
any resulting product in developed-world markets, and the two firms will co-promote it in India.
• Pfizer is exploring the establishment of an R&D facility and setting up an Academy for Clinical
Research in Mumbai.
Costs of clinical trials in India are around one-tenth of their levels in the U.S., and it is estimated
that they could be worth $300 million to India by 2010. Major drug producers that are already
conducting trials in India include Pfizer, estimated to have some 20 ongoing clinical trials there;
GSK, with seven trials; Eli Lilly, with 17 trials; plus AstraZeneca and Novartis. As well as
Chiltern, leading contract research organizations (CROs) such as Quintiles, SFBC International
and ICON Clinical Research have extensive operations in India.
31
Challenges
All of these changes are ultimately good for the Indian pharmaceutical industry, which suffered
in the past from inadequate regulation and large quantities of spurious drugs. They force the
industry to reach a level necessary for global competitiveness. However, they have also exposed
some of the inadequacies in the industry today. Its main weakness is an underdeveloped new
molecule discovery program. Even after the increased investment, market leaders such as
Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories spent only 5-10% of their revenues on R&D, lagging
behind Western pharmaceuticals like Pfizer, whose research budget last year was greater than the
combined revenues of the entire Indian pharmaceutical industry. This disparity is too great to be
explained by cost differentials, and it comes when advances in genomics have made research
equipment more expensive than ever. The drug discovery process is further hindered by a dearth
of qualified molecular biologists. Due to the disconnect between curriculum and industry,
pharmas in India also lack the academic collaboration that is crucial to drug development in the
West.
R&D
Both the Indian central and state governments have recognized R&D as an important driver in
the growth of their pharma businesses and conferred tax deductions for expenses related to
research and development. They have granted other concessions as well, such as reduced interest
rates for export financing and a cut in the number of drugs under price control. Government
support is not the only thing in Indian pharma’s favor, though; companies also have access to a
highly-developed IT industry that can partner with them in new molecule discovery.
Labor force
India’s greatest strengths lie in its people. India also boasts a cheap, well-educated, English-
speaking [only a percentage, see labor force that is the base of its competitive advantage.
Although molecular biologists are in short supply, there are a number of talented chemists who
are equally as important in the discovery process. In addition, there has been a reverse brain-
drain effect in which scientists are returning from abroad to accept positions at lower salaries at
Indian companies. Once there, these foreign-trained scientists can transfer the benefits of their
32
knowledge and experience to all of those who work with them. India’s wealth of people extends
benefits to another part of the drug commercialization process as well. With one of the largest
and most genetically diverse populations in any single country, India can recruit for clinical trials
more quickly and perform them more cheaply than countries in the West. Indian firms have just
recently started to leverage.
Government support
The Indian government has been very supportive. It established the Department of
Biotechnology in 1986 under the Ministry of Science and Technology. Since then, there have
been a number of dispensations offered by both the central government and various states to
encourage the growth of the industry. India’s science minister launched a program that provides
tax incentives and grants for biotech start-ups and firms seeking to expand and establishes the
Biotechnology Parks Society of India to support ten biotech parks by 2010. Previously limited to
rodents, animal testing was expanded to include large animals as part of the minister’s initiative.
States have started to vie with one another for biotech business, and they are offering such
goodies as exemption from VAT and other fees, financial assistance with patents and subsidies
on everything ranging from investment to land to utilities.
Foreign investment
The government has also taken steps to encourage foreign investment in its biotech sector. An
initiative passed earlier this year allowed 100% foreign direct investment without compulsory
licensing from the government1. In April, a delegation headed by the Kapil Sibal, the minister of
science and technology and ocean development, visited five cities in the U.S. to encourage
investment in India, with special emphasis on biotech. Just two months later, Sibal returned to
the U.S. to unveil India’s biotech growth strategy at the BIO2005 conference in Philadelphia.
Relationship with IT
Many analysts have observed that the hype around the biotech sector mirrors that of the IT
sector. Biotech colleges have been popping up around the country eager to service the pools of
students that want to take advantage of a growing industry. The International Finance
Commission, the private investment arm of the World Bank, called India the “centerpiece of
IFC’s global biotech strategy.” Of the $110 million invested in 14 biotech projects investment
33
globally, the IFC has given $43 million to 4 projects in India. According to Dr. Manju Sharma,
former director of the Department of Biotechnology, the biotech industry could become the
“single largest sector for employment of skilled human resource in the years to come.” British
Prime Minister Tony Blair was similarly impressed, citing the success of India’s biotech industry
as the reason for his own country’s own biotech opportunities. Malaysia is also looking to India
as an example for growing its own biotech industry.
Entry modes for pharmaceutical companies in Indian market
Among all the major industries in India, textiles and pharmaceuticals are surely the leaders. The
Indian government has listed the pharmaceutical industry as an intellectual industry and
investment in research and development has been enhanced. In financial year 2001, imports were
Rs 20 bn while exports were Rs87 bn.
More than 85% of the formulations produced in the country are sold in the domestic market.
Over 60% of India's bulk drug production is exported and Import of bulk drugs have slowed
down in the recent years.
The Indian pharmaceutical industry is also getting increasingly U.S. FDA compliant to harness
the growth opportunities in areas of contract manufacturing and research. Indian companies such
as Ranbaxy, Sun Pharma, and Dr. Reddy's are increasingly focusing on tapping the U.S. generic
market. Recently, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd has received a tentative approval from the US Food
and Drug Administration to manufacture and market Lamivudine tablets (150 mg), a medicine
used in treating HIV infection. This tentative approval has been granted under the US President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Initiative (PEPFAR).
The pharmaceutical products account for 8 percent of the global pharmaceutical sales and India
is the fifth largest producer of bulk medicines in the world. In 2001, the value of India's exports
of medicines approached US$1.7 billion.
Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is estimated to be worth $ 4.5 billion, growing at about 8 to 9
percent annually. It ranks very high in the third world, in terms of technology, quality and range
of medicines manufactured. From simple headache pills to sophisticated antibiotics and complex
cardiac compounds, almost every type of medicine is now made indigenously.
The Industry possesses quality producers and many units approved by regulatory authorities in
USA and UK. International companies associated with this sector have stimulated, assisted and
34
spearheaded this dynamic development in the past 53 years and helped to put India on the
pharmaceutical map of the world.
There are 20,000 laboratories in India's pharmaceutical industry and the scale of the
pharmaceutical market amounts to Euro 5.3 billion. The leading 250 pharmaceutical companies
control 70% of the market with market leader holding nearly 7% of the market share. It is an
extremely fragmented market with severe price competition and government price control.
Around 70% of the country's demand for bulk drugs, drug intermediates, pharmaceutical
formulations, chemicals, tablets, capsules, orals and injections is met by home production. There
are about 250 large units and about 8000 Small Scale Units, which form the core of the
pharmaceutical industry in India (including 5 Central Public Sector Units).
Following the de-licensing of the pharmaceutical industry, industrial licensing for most of the
drugs and pharmaceutical products has been done away with. Manufacturers are free to produce
any drug duly approved by the Drug Control Authority. Technologically strong and totally self-
reliant, the pharmaceutical industry in India has low costs of production, low R&D costs,
innovative scientific manpower, strength of national laboratories and an increasing balance of
trade. The Pharmaceutical Industry, with its rich scientific talents and research capabilities,
supported by Intellectual Property Protection regime is well set to take on the international
market.
Over 20,000 registered pharmaceutical manufacturers exist in the country. The domestic
pharmaceuticals industry output is expected to exceed Rs260 billion in the financial year 2002,
which accounts for merely 1.3% of the global pharmaceutical sector. Of this, bulk drugs will
account for Rs 54 bn (21%) and formulations, the remaining Rs 210 bn (79%).
The Indian government had recently passed Patents (Amendment) Bill on Tuesday, March 22,
2005 amid many protests from the Left parties. The passing of the bill means that India has kept
its commitment to the WTO to have a product patent regime in place.
The fear that the new bill would lead to an increase in the cost of life saving drugs, is taken care
of by the compulsory licensing under the bill. This will enable Indian companies to manufacture
medicines for a fixed tenure in case of any epidemic, thus controlling the price factor.
The government has made crucial changes to the original draft to ensure big pharma MNCs can't
dictate medicine prices arbitrarily. The most important change in the Act is a tighter definition of
35
what can be patented. Now only a product, including drugs, which makes a technical advance or
has economic significance, can get a patent.
Some of the changes that bill proposes include giving manufacturing rights to Indian companies,
which currently produce drugs patented abroad, after paying a 'reasonable' royalty for them.
The bill also restricts a pharmaceutical company from renewing its patent every time it expires,
citing a new use for the same drug. It gives companies more grounds and time to challenge a
patent claim even before it's granted.
The government will also have the right to issue a compulsory license to an Indian company to
produce a patented product if the patent holder is charging abnormally high rates or in case of a
national emergency.
Expenditure on R & D by the Indian pharmaceutical companies is around 1.9% of the industry's
turnover. This is very low when compared to the investment on R & D by foreign research-based
pharma companies. They spend 10 - 16% of the turnover on R & D. However, now that India has
entered into the Patent protection area, many companies are spending relatively more on R & D.
The Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industry is eligible for weight deduction for R&D
expense up to 150%.
There are three main entry modes available for a firm to choose
1. exporting,
2. contractual (e.g. licensing)
3. investment (e.g. establishing an overseas operation)
These decision processes for international pharmaceutical firms' (IPFs) ventures located in India
in the period from 1980 to 1998.
By the end of 1998, there were over 1,500 foreign invested pharmaceutical companies (FIPCs)
distributed in almost every part of India. IPFs who entered into India during the period from
1980 to 1998 basically chose either a joint venture (JV) or a sole venture (SV) entry mode, and
over 84% of IPFs chose a JV rather than a SV, even though foreign investors have been allowed
to set up 100% foreign owned SV operations since the passage of Law of the People's Republic
of India is the legal regime of the People's Republic of India, with the separate legal traditions
and systems of Mainland India. On Enterprises Operated Exclusively with Foreign Capital" by
the Indian central government in April 1986. "For most manufacturers that want to invest abroad,
36
the first-best entry strategy remains the SV, and JV would be a second best One that is next to
the best.
SV is viewed superior because it allows investing firms to maximize the returns on Ownership-
specific advantages Property rights or intangible assets, including patents, trademarks,
organizational and marketing expertise, production technology, and management and general
organizational abilities, that form the basis for a company's advantage over other firms and firms
have full control over the Business operations are those activities involved in the running of a
business for the purpose of producing value for the stakeholders. Compare business processes.
The outcome of business operations is the harvesting of value from assets. This study attempts to
answer why the majority of IPFs selected a JV rather than SV as their entry mode for entering
into the Indian market. The research focused on the comparison between SV and JV as
alternative modes of entry and examined the determinant factors that affected IPFs' choice
between the two entry modes. Since India opened its door to foreign investors in 1978, the year
of 1992 was another turning point in India's political and economic reforms. The dramatic
changes in Indian policies and economic development activities may result significant impacts
on the investment environment, in turn impacting on international firms' entry mode decisions
into India. The findings of the study are both timely, useful, and contribute to a better
understanding of foreign direct investment entry mode theories and practices in general.
JV entry mode would be preferred when cultural distance is large between the host and the home
countries. The probability of forming JVs is positively related with the level of host country
welfare a classic, serious western film about a pioneer family protected by a mysterious stranger.
the level of host government restrictions and level of competition in the host country. Firms
would be more likely to establish JVs when the firm enters into a research and development
intensive industry.
Bell's (1996) study suggested that firms with host country experience have a positive effect on
the likelihood of JVs. The level of competition and the size of the foreign subsidiary turned out
to have a negative effect on the likelihood of JVs. A host country policy did not have an effect on
the choice between a JV and a SV in the case of Dutch firms' direct investment in over 40
countries or regions worldwide. Firms' entry mode decisions may be heavily influenced by a host
37
country's investment policies. Joint ventures, for instance, are popular in India because there are
direct or indirect government rules requiring them in some circumstances.
American sculptor best remembered for his vigorous portrait busts of Woodrow Wilson,
Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Albert Einstein, among others. , 1987; Eiteman, 1990). Tse, Pan and
Au (1997) suggested that longer diplomatic ties between India and investing firm's home country
assume more equity-based operations including JV and SV rather than non-equity-based entry
modes like exporting or licensing agreements and firms choosing equity-based entry modes are
more likely to work with Indian municipal governments. Root (1994), and Mockler and Dologite
(1997) have elaborated on the factors affecting the decision choice of entry mode. They
suggested that an initial concept of an entry mode can be determined by studying host country
environmental, market, production, parent firm's home country, parent firm's product and
resource commitment factors.
Entry mode choice between either the JV or SV mode option only. The main reason for this is
because JV and SV were the only two entry modes adopted by IPFs in the population from
which the sample was drawn. Theories based upon the findings of previous studies are
inappropriate for this study for several reasons. The most important of which are:
(1) most previous studies on entry mode choice decision cover a wide range of mode options
including exporting, licensing, equity-based investment (e.g. joint venture and sole venture), etc.,
whereas the present study focuses on SV and JV entry modes only.
(2) As stated earlier, most studies were based on US and European.
India is a complex society, by virtue of it’s deeply Inserted into multi-layered cultural heritage,
its long history, its diverse social and political development, and its vast geographical scale
which encompasses both national common characteristics and strong local identities, traditions
and distinctive dialects, and so on. This complexity is one of the critical challenges for most
foreign investors when they choose an entry mode for entering into the market.
To give an explanation that serves to clarify all the factors that affect the choice of entry mode
decision. In this study, the relevance of Kumar and Subramaniam's (1997) contingency approach
is acknowledged. As a result, this approach will be incorporated into Root (1994) and Mockler &
Dologite's (1997) conventional framework, which serves as a basis for the conceptual framework
of this study. Root's (1994) foreign market entry mode framework combined with Mockler &
Dologite's (1997) model of decision making on the selection of international market entry mode
38
does not narrow itself into any specific entry mode approach, but emphasizes both a firm's
internal and external factors, which include host country (India) environmental, market and
production factors, parent firm's home country/region, and parent firm's product and resource
factors. It recognizes the complexity of the international business environment with multinational
cross-cultural management considerations. As a consequence, a more complete framework that
incorporates India environmental factors, India market factors, India production factors, a firm's
product factors, a firm's resource and commitment factors, and a firm's decision task related
factors will be used as the conceptual framework for this study on international pharmaceutical
firms' FDI entry strategies into India. Most independent variables were identified and selected
based on Root's (1994), Mockler & Dologite's (1997), Kumar & Subramaniam's (1997)
frameworks, and other previous empirical studies and the researcher's observations based on his
extensive experience and knowledge in the industry in India.
India's environmental factors would have significant impacts on a firm's FDI entry mode
decision. India's environmental factors were measured by a number of sub-groups of factors
including political and economic conditions, social-cultural differences, technology conditions,
geographic distance between parent firms' home country/region and India, and business
operation location in India.
To deal with, the status of political relationships between India and parent firm's home
country/region, and length of diplomatic ties between India and parent firm's home
country/region. Economic condition variables include role of the Indian government in the
economy, size of the economy, size of population, growth rate of population, growth rate of
gross national product, growth rate of per capita income - the total national income divided by
the number of people in the nation income - the financial gain (earned or unearned) accruing
over a given period of time , distribution of personal income, changes in employment, relative
importance of the pharmaceutical industry in the economy, and the status of economic co-
operation between India and parent firm's country/region. Social-cultural variables consist of
employees' loyalty to company, hardworking characteristics of employees, social society
structure, Indian people's way of life, and way of doing business in India. Technology condition
variables concern about availability of infrastructure, quality of infrastructure, availability of
qualified scientific and technical personnel, and research and development intensity.
39
CHAPTER-2
Major pharmaceutical companies in India
Domestic player
AARTI DRUGS LTD.Part of the USD 265 million Aarti Group of Industries, Aarti Drugs Ltd (ADL) was established
way back in in 1984.
Since its inception, the Company has established a strong presence in the Anti-diarrhea, Anti-
inflammatory therapeutic groups. With its manufacturing facilities at Tarapur and Sarigam, the
Company manufactures Vitamins, Anti-arthritis, Anti-fungal, Antibiotics, ACE inhibitors,
besides its range in , anti-diabetic, anti-cholinergic, sedatives and anti-depressant drugs.
Over the years, the Company has been able to carve a niche for itself and is looking forward to
expand the volumes. With the government initiative to encourage private health insurance
schemes, consumer spending on medicines is expected to increase, which will spur growth in the
generic sector in the domestic market.
The manufacturing-units of ADL are GMP certified. The Company is also in the process of
acquiring an ISO 9002 compliance for all its units and one of the units has already been
approved.
The Company aims at becoming the first choice of this expanding market through better
products, ensuring quality and timely delivery
CONTACT US:
Registered Office
Plot No. N - 198, M.I.D.C., Tarapur,
Village - Pamtembhi, Taluka - Palghar, Dist. Thane - 401 506.
Maharashtra. (INDIA)
40
ADVIK LABORATORIES LTD.
Advik Laboratories Limited is the brainchild of Mr. V. K. Jain. Mr. Jain is a qualified production
chemist with over 20 years experience in pharmaceutical products.
Advik Laboratories Limited was promoted in the 1994 by Mr. Jain along with a group of
dedicated professionals & commenced commercial production in 1997. In his leadership, the
company has witnessed a fast growth rate, without compromise to quality.
Advik Laboratories, a WHO – GMP certified company has been set up from the ground level
with the avowed objective of achieving USFDA standards of quality.
The company has a technical collaboration with PFC Pharma Focus Ltd. Switzerland.
Advik Laboratories is enjoying leadership status at various fronts such as high product quality, a
growing range of products, state of the art manufacturing process, competitive pricing and
customer service. In addition the company exports its wide range of drugs to a number of
countries worldwide.
The product range includes ethical, generic drugs and over the counter drugs (OTC) in various
formulations.
With over 60,000 sq. ft. of built up area, ample developed open space around it, a state of the art
manufacturing facility, Advik Laboratories is all geared up for meeting the challenges of
tomorrow
Corporate Office
Address : 203 & 106-07, Allied House, 1, LSC, Madangir
New Delhi-110 062, India
Telephone : +91 11 41649171, 41649173, 41649174
E-mail : [email protected]
EMCURE
41
Established in 1983, Emcure was born out of the vision to create a healthcare company that
would address the vast healthcare needs. Our commitment and drive have propelled our growth
from a single manufacturing facility during the genesis, to a range of world class manufacturing
facilities spread across API, formulations and biotechnology.
What began with a single manufacturing facility at Pune, has today rapidly grown into a set of
world class manufacturing facilities and one of the top Indian pharmaceutical corporate in the
domestic industry.
Headquartered in Pune, India, Emcure is today a vertically integrated pharmaceutical company
with infrastructure, skills and resources that are at par with the best in the world. Our strengths
span research to the manufacturing of APIs, Formulations and Biotechnology.
The Company has carved a niche for itself as a preferred outsourcing partner for some of the
largest MNCs both in India and global markets.
Emcure also researches, manufactures and markets formulations under its own brands in the
domestic market and exports its own formulations to Asia, Africa, CIS, Europe, Latin America
and the Middle East.
In 2006, it received US FDA approval for its solid dosages facility at Hinjwadi, Pune. The plant
manufactures solid oral formulations for the international regulated markets. With this approval,
the facility has accreditation from US FDA, UK MHRA, WHO Geneva and MCC South Africa.
Today, the Emcure brand stands for quality, competitiveness and transparency. These values
have stood us in good stead to carve our image in the industry and build long-term sustainable
relationships with our partners.
Emcure is also very active in dealing with HIV/AIDS concern through its "Let's fight AIDS
together" initiative and supplies Antiretroviral drugs to Africa, Asia Pacific and CIS. We took
another significant step towards fulfilling our corporate social responsibility by starting ‘Taal’, a
pharmacy for HIV/AIDS.
REGISTERED OFFICE
Emcure House,
T 184, M.I.D.C.,
Bhosari, Pune 411 026.
Tele: 020-30610000
BAL PHARMA
42
To improve the quality of life for patients by providing them with products which are Safe,
Effective, High Quality and Affordable price.
Bal Pharma is a fully integrated and leading Indian Pharmaceutical Company specializing in
Prescription drugs, Generic, OTC products, Intravenous Infusion and Bulk Actives with almost
19 years of experience behind it.
Bal Pharma’s API’s and Formulations are produced at world class manufacturing facilities.
API’s are exported to Europe, Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Asian markets.
Formulation products are exported to Semi-Regulated and Non Regulated markets and s strong
contender for Tender business in various markets especially Asian markets.
With the new facility being set up in Uttaranchal, as per ICH and PIC guidelines to meet the
requirements of USFDA and various European MOH, the company plans to enter in to
Regulated Markets by 2010 and already in talks for Contract Manufacturing for clients in
Regulated Markets. Successful Operations in Domestic and International markets, backed by its
strength in Research and strong Infrastructure frame work have accelerated Bal Pharma’s growth
from oblivience to reach a turn over of USD 25 million today. Buoyed by the past, the group has
put in motion a fast track growth target and has set its sigh on sales in excess of USD 150 million
by 2012.
Corporate Address:
Bal Pharma Limited
5th Floor, Laxmi Narayan Complex,
10/1, Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052.
Bangalore -India.
Website- http://www.balpharma.com/
TORRENT GUJRAT BIOTECH LTD.
Incorporated in 1991, Torrent Gujarat Biotech Limited (TGBL) has become the largest new-
generation producer of Penicillin-G, meeting about 18% of the country's Penicillin needs. It is
one of the few companies in the world with an integrated technology to manufacture Penicillin-
G. TGBL offers the entire range of ß-lactum products viz. Amoxycillin Trihydrate, Ampicillin
43
Trihydrate and Cloxacillin Sodium to a large number of customers in India, Europe, Latin
America and Asia.
Over the years TGBL has been accorded WHO GMP certificates and Certificate of Suitability
from European directorate for Quality of Medicines (EDQM) for Amoxycillin Trihydrate. TGBL
is also a recognized Export House. TGBL looks forward to adding more products over the
coming years and consolidating its position in India.
Torrent Gujarat Biotech Limited is the largest new-generation producer of Penicillin-G, meeting
about 18% of the country's Penicillin needs
Corporate Office:
Torrent House,
Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380 009
Gujarat, India
Email: [email protected]
Works:
Village Masar, Vadodara Jambusar Highway No. 6,
Taluka - Padra, District- Vadodara 391 421
Gujarat, India
Telephones - +91-(0)2662-237321 - 6, 237301 – 3
Email: [email protected]
SUN PHARMA
Sun Pharma began in 1983 with just 5 products to treat psychiatry ailments. Sales were initially
limited to 2 states - West Bengal and Bihar. Sales were rolled out nationally in 1985. Products
that are used in cardiology were introduced in 1987, and Monotrate, one of the first products
launched at that time has since become one of our largest selling products. Important products in
Cardiology were then added; several of these were introduced for the first time in India.
Realizing the fact that research is a critical growth driver, we established our research center
SPARC in 1993 and this created a base of strong product and process development skills.
Sun Pharma was listed on the main stock exchanges in India in 1994; and the Rs. 55 crore issue
of a Rs. 10 face value equity share at a premium of Rs. 140/- was oversubscribed 55 times. The
minimum 25% that was required under the regulations then for listing was offered to the public,
44
the owner family continues to hold a majority stake in Sun Pharma. We used this money to build
a greenfield site for API manufacture, as well as for acquisitions. For the acquisitions, typically
companies or assets that could be turned around and brought on track were identified.
Our first API manufacturing plant was built in Panoli in 1995, for access to high quality actives
ahead of competition, and to tap the vast international opportunity for specialty APIs.
Another API plant, our Ahmednagar plant, was acquired from the multinational Knoll
Pharmaceuticals in 1996, and upgraded for approvals from regulated markets, with substantial
capacity addition over the years. This was the first of several sensibly priced acquisitions, each
of which would bring important parts to the long-term strategy.
By 1997, our headquarters were shifted to Mumbai, the commercial capital of the country. We
began on the first of our international acquisitions with an initial $7.5 million investment in
Caraco Pharm Labs, Detroit. By 2000, we had completed 8 acquisitions, each such move adding
new therapy areas or offering an entry to important international markets. A new research center
was set up in Mumbai for generic product development for the US market. In India, as new
therapy areas were entered into post acquisition; customer attention, product selection and
focused marketing helped us gain a foothold in areas like orthopedics, gynecology, oncology,
etc. From a ranking at 38th in 1994, by 2000 we were ranked 5th with a leadership in 8 of the 11
therapy areas that we are present in. The year 2000 was the year of turnaround at the US
subsidiary, Caraco, as it began to receive approvals after successful inspection by the USFDA. In
December 2004, a research center spread over 16 acres was inaugurated by the President of
India, with special lab space for drug discovery and innovation. The post 2005 years have
witnessed important acquisitions to strengthen our US business- the purchase of manufacturing
assets for controlled substances in Cranbury,NJ; that of a site to make creams and lotions in
Bryan, that of Alkaloid, a Hungary based API and dosage form manufacturer , and recently,
Chattem Ltd., a Tennessee-based controlled substance API manufacturer.
The tally at the end of 2008:
17 manufacturing plants in 3 continents
8000 employees
2 World class research centers
45
Brand selling in markets worldwide
A growing presence in the US generic market
Increasing research investments
60% of sales from international markets
CONTACT US:
Corporate Office
Sun Pharma
Acme Plaza,
Andheri - Kurla Rd, Andheri (E),
Mumbai - 400 059
Sun Pharma Advanced Research Centre (SPARC)
Akota Road,
Akota,
Baroda - 390 020
SURYA PHARMACEUTICAL LTD
Surya Pharmaceutical Limited was established in 1992, with a vision towards Empowering Life
and well being, and has rapidly emerged as the premier integrated pharmaceuticals company in
India. Its business focuses on the manufacture and marketing of pharmaceuticals products and
services to clients across the globe, and its product portfolio includes a range of Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API's), Finished Drug Formulations (FDF's), Fine Intermediates,
Herbal Products, and Mint/Menthol Derivatives.
The company is one of the largest exporters of Mint/Menthol derivatives and manages state of
the art research & development centers that offer the highest quality of Contract Research and
Development (CRAMS) services. Over the years Surya Pharmaceutical has established a global
footprint in fulfilling the requirements of clients across 90 countries across the globe.
At Surya Pharmaceutical, we believe that if we take care of the present, we inspire a better
future. It is this vision towards a disease free world, a sustainable natural environment and a
healthy global population, that supports our commitment to ensure the highest quality of
products and services towards offering unparallel care to our own clients, and to the larger
community.
46
Surya Pharmaceutical is the flagship company of Surya which has business interests in
Education, Healthcare, Communications, and Infrastructure. The company is an ISO 9001-2000
WHO GMP certified organization with nine state of the art manufacturing units positioned in
multiple locations across the northern region in India. With a focus on innovation and quality,
the company has demonstrated unparallel growth to a current turnover of more than Rs. 7 billion
and is listed on both the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange.
The company currently supports a personnel base of more than 2000 employees in locations
across India and has imminent plans to expand its network of offices to Shanghai, Singapore,
Europe and the United States of America (USA) in the near future to further strengthen its
position as one of the leading exporters of pharmaceutical products.
PFIZER INDIA
The pursuit of innovation is basic to Pfizer's culture. It shapes our strategy, defines our purpose,
and governs every facet of our operations -- from research and development (R&D) that leads to
pharmaceutical inventions, to the transfer of knowledge to patients and providers, to the way we
respond to the changing marketplace.
Pfizer scientists have produced innovative breakthroughs in a wide range of research areas,
including depression, erectile dysfunction, high cholesterol, HIV infection, hypertension,
bacterial infections and systemic fungal infections. And today we're taking on some of the
world's most difficult diseases, including cancer, arthritis, and osteoporosis.
Pfizer in India
Pfizer Limited (India) has a turnover of US$ 159.52 million (November 2009)
One of the highest spenders in pharmaceutical R&D globally, Pfizer has made clinical research
investments of US$ 6.05 million (November 2009) in India
The company was awarded the FICCI SEDF (Socio Economic Development Foundation)
Certificate of Commendation for its social responsibility efforts
Pfizer has won several awards including that for the multinational pharmaceutical company of
the year and the most respected MNC
About our products
Six Pfizer brands feature among the Top 100 pharmaceutical brands in India
47
Two of Pfizer India's brands -- Corex (Cough Formulation) and Becosules (Multivitamin) --
continue to rank among the Top 10 pharmaceutical drug brands
Pfizer has won the Golden Peacock Innovative Product for Magnex (Sulperazon)
Becosules has won the Most Trusted Brand Award
Going beyond medicines
In India, Pfizer instituted the first ever Disease Management Programme -- Healthy Heart in
Cardio Vascular Disease (Hypertension, Chronic Stable Angina and Dyslipidemia), in
partnership with Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad and Apollo Hospital, Chennai
We offer Patient Assistance Programmes for Glaucoma, Breast Cancer and Neuropathic Pain
We partner with physician associations to develop recommendations / guidelines of managing
specific diseases
Location & People
Headquartered in Mumbai
Over 2,300 colleagues
State-of-the-art manufacturing facility at Thane, Maharashtra
Academic Contribution
Formed the Academy of Clinical Excellence (ACE) in collaboration with Bombay College of
Pharmacy to provide professional training to investigators and other clinical research personnel
We have also partnered with other pharmaceutical companies, contract research organizations
and investigators to establish the Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR), a professional
society aimed at raising the standards of clinical research
Pfizer Education and Research League (PEARL) is a new initiative in which Pfizer seeks to
partner with institutes to improve existing clinical research and continuing medical educational
capabilities
Head Office
Pfizer Limited
Pfizer Centre,
Patel Estate, S V Road,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai - 400 102, India.
48
Tel : +91 - 22 - 6693 2000
Fax : +91 - 22 - 6693 2444
Thane Plant
Pfizer Limited
Thane Belapur Road,
K.U. Bazar Post,
Turbhe,
Navi Mumbai - 400 075, India.
Tel : +91 - 22 - 67916161 / 27681036 / 27681421
Fax : +91 - 22 – 67916160
Delhi
Pfizer Limited
Pfizer Centre,
DLF Building 9B, 4th Floor,
Tower B, DLF Cybercity,
Phase III, Gurgaon - 122 002,
Haryana.
Tel : 0124 - 302 3900
Fax : 0124 - 302 3901
UNICHEM LABORTRIES
Promoted by a pioneer of the Indian pharmaceuticals business, Mr. Amrut Mody, Unichem
Laboratories has grown to become one of India’s most respected pharmaceutical companies. It is
committed to delivering better health through superior products. By combining strategic research
and in-depth industry knowledge, Unichem aims to transform itself into a global pharmaceutical
drug company with an increasing focus on cutting-edge research and developed markets.
With formulations forming the core of Unichem’s business, the company also manufactures
active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs or bulk actives). In addition, it has several pharma
products that address relevant and growing therapeutic areas like gastroenterology, cardiology,
diabetology, psychiatry, neurology, anti-bacterial, anti-infective and pain management among
others.
49
Backed by a highly capable and motivated team of nearly 3000 people, Unichem is
headquartered in Mumbai, India, and has six drug manufacturing locations across the country. In
keeping with its commitment to benchmark quality standards, several of the company’s facilities
have been accredited by reputed international organizations such as the US FDA, ISO, UK
MHRA (earlier MCA), MCC (South Africa), WHO (Geneva) and TGA (Australia).
The company has taken several important strides in the critical area of pharmaceuticals Research
& Development (R&D). It has expanded its R&D facility in Mumbai to spearhead research in
Novel Drug Delivery Systems (NDDS) and chemically synthesize non-infringing routes for the
manufacture of medical products directed at regulated markets. In its effort to drive innovation,
Unichem has established a proprietary Pharma Technology Development Centre in Goa to focus
on the development of generic formulations comprising Immediate Release as well as NDDS and
ANDAs exclusively for the US market. The facility has also been equipped to handle the
development of formulation for New Chemical Entities (NCEs). Further, the company has also
established Biotech facility at Goa to invent, design, develop and commercialize biotech and
dissimilar products.
With a robust business model, seamless processes and innovative research, Unichem is
positioned to take on challenges of the future while remaining firmly rooted in a solid foundation
of values.
Registered Office & Corporate Office
Unichem Laboratories Ltd.
Unichem Bhavan
Prabhat Estate, Off S.V.Road,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai - 400 102
Tel: + 91 022 66 888 333
Fax: + 91 022 2678 4391 / 2678 8665
Plant Locations
Unichem Laboratories Ltd.
99, MIDC Area,
Roha, Dist Raigad,
Maharashtra - 402 116
50
International player
AVENTIS PHARMA LIMITED
In May 1956, Aventis Pharma Limited was established as Hoechst Fedco Pharma Private Ltd.
With 50.1% holding of paid-up share capital, Sanofi-aventis is the major shareholder of
Aventis Pharma Ltd.
Aventis is currently present in over 100 countries with its global headquarters in Paris, France.
The total employee strength worldwide is about 100,000, including 11000 scientists. Product
portfolio of Aventis includes medicines in the area of cardiovascular disease, thrombosis,
diabetes, bone disease, epilepsy and cancer. It has 20 research centers in three continents, with
R&D budget of about 4 billion euros.
Aventis Pharma Ltd. India has 2 state-of-art manufacturing facilities at Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
and at Verna (Goa). These sites have been identified as the global sourcing units.
The company is working to bring innovative products so as to make the necessary treatments
more widely available. In India it has employee strength of about 1840.
Corporate Address:
Aventis House
54/A, Sir Mathuradas Vasanji Road,
Andheri (E),
Mumbai - 400 093
India.
Ph: 91-22-28278000
Fax: 91-22-28370939
51
Annual Results of Aventis :
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 8,581.00 7,864.00 9.12
Other Income 295 218 35.32
Total Income 8,876.00 8,082.00 9.82
Total Expenditure 6,340.00 5,719.00 10.86
Operating Profit 2,536.00 2,363.00 7.32
Interest 0 1 -100
Gross Profit 2,536.00 2,362.00 7.37
Depreciation 172 168 2.38
Tax 913 777 17.5
Reported PAT 1,451.00 1,485.00 -2.29
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
BIOCON
The company was founded on 29th November 1978. It has emerged from an enzyme
manufacturing company to a fully integrated biopharmaceutical enterprise, which is focused on
healthcare. It possesses a rare combination of proprietary fermentation technology and research
skills.
In 1979 it became the first company to manufacture and export enzymes to USA and Europe.
In 1996, the company's proprietary fermentation plant had commercial success that led to 3-
fold expansion. In 1998, the company became an independent entity when Unilever agreed to
sell its shareholding in Biocon to the promoter.
In the year 2000, Clinigene, which is a subsidiary of Biocon, was set up to pursue clinical
researches and developments. And in the year 2003, Biocon became the first company to
develop human insulin on a Pichia expression system.
In 2004 it introduced new generation bio-insulin-INSUGEN. In 2006, Biocon launched India's
52
first cancer drug- BIOMAb EGFR.
Biocon together with Syngene and Clinigene has employee strength of about 2000, consisting
of chemists, computer scientists, medical practitioners, engineers, chemists, market analysts
and biologists.
Contact Us:
Biocon: Biopharmaceuticals & Enzyme
Headquarters: Bangalore 20th KM Hosur Road
Electronics City Bangalore 560 100
India. Ph: 91 80 2808 2808
e-mail: [email protected]
Annual Results of Biocon:
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 6,463.62 5,018.82 28.79
Other Income 157.99 15.64 910.28
Total Income 6,621.61 5,034.46 31.53
Total Expenditure 4,535.67 3,405.45 33.19
Operating Profit 2,085.94 1,629.01 28.05
Interest 19.93 15.68 27.14
Gross Profit 2,066.01 1,613.33 28.06
Depreciation 180.92 138.53 30.6
Tax 141.22 228.08 -38.08
Reported PAT 1,743.88 1,246.73 39.88
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
CADILACadila is a well known research-oriented, technology-driven pharmaceutical company
53
focused on the research areas of biotechnology, formulations and Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients (APIs), etc. It has marketing offices in more than 4 countries and has significant
presence in over 45 countries.
It is into the operations of soft gel, telecommunications, hospital disposables,
instrumentations and diagnostics, etc. Cadila is among the leading pharma companies with
over 400 multi-dimensional formulations of major therapeutics groups in human and over 15
in animal health. Cadila has a strong formulation development base and is the first
manufacturer of Immuvac, a unique immune modulator.
In Asia, it is the unrivaled manufacturer of 'SULFOLANE' (Tetramethylene Sulfone). Its Bulk
Actives (APIs) manufacturing facility is approved under ISO 9002 and it offers facilities for
contract research. It has achieved leadership in Indian Generic market as well as in Distribution
management.
The R&D facility of Cadila is spread in an area of 45,000 Sq.ft. and has human resources of
150 scientists. It has collaboration with more than 30 leading R&D centers in the country. It
has introduced RABEPRAZOLE and FOSINOPRIL formulations in India. Its strong marketing
& sales team consists of 2, 37318 pharmacies 1900 wholesalers, 25 C&S agents, and 1,300
field employees
Cadila has the following brands:
Envas
Aciloc
Lmx, Symbiotik, Clax
Rabeloc, RD, Zaso, Mixulin, Montelast and Nodon
Corporate & Registered Office:
CADILA CORPORATE CAMPUS
Sarkhej-Dholka Road,
Bhat, Ahmedabad-382 210, INDIA.
Phone: +91-2718-225001 (15 Lines) Fax: +91-2718-225039
e-mail: [email protected]
54
Annual Results of Cadila:
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 11,253.00 11,160.00 0.83
Other Income 785 925 -15.14
Total Income 12,038.00 12,085.00 -0.39
Total Expenditure 9,643.00 9,598.00 0.47
Operating Profit 2,395.00 2,487.00 -3.7
Interest 202 232 -12.93
Gross Profit 2,193.00 2,255.00 -2.75
Depreciation 565 531 6.4
Tax 190 222 -14.41
Reported PAT 1,314.00 1,411.00 -6.87
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
CIPLA LIMITEDIn 1935, Cipla was founded by Dr.Khwaja Abdul Hamied as a small Indian enterprise that
was committed to nation's quest for self-sufficiency. During the Second World War Cipla
proved itself by meeting the challenge of alarming shortage of essential medicines. Cipla
pioneered the bulk drug manufacturing market by the 1960s.
Cipla has committed production plants for Oncology products, Hormones, Inhalers,
Carbapenems, and cephlosporins, among other products. Its API manufacturing plants have
the capability of complex multi-stage syntheses and can manufacture over 120 APIs from
high potency actives in grams to those made in several tonnes.
Cipla has a wide range of products and dosages forms, everything from nasal sprays, metered-
dose inhalers, medical devices, trans-dermal spray patches, thermo labile foams, pre-filled
syringes, and lyophilized injections.
Cipla has 7000 employees, who are known for their continuous quest for quality. For them
quality is obsession.
55
Cipla had opened the door of hope to several AIDS patients by becoming the first company in
the world to offer the Triple-drug AIDS Cocktail at a very low price. According to an estimate,
one out of three HIV-AIDS patients in Africa takes Cipla drug for the treatment.
In partnership with the medical fraternity, Cipla has spread awareness and empowered asthma
patients to lead a normal life. It has the widest range of asthma medication and better delivery
systems. Cipla is also dedicated to clinical and allied research in the field of Chronic
Respiratory Diseases.
Recently, the company has entered into agreement with a global non-profit organization for
developing and manufacturing Drugs for Neglected diseases Initiative (DNDi) for a new anti-
malarial combination drug.
Corporate Address:
Cipla Ltd. Mumbai Central
Mumbai 400 008 India.
Ph: 022-23082891,022-23095521
Annual Results of Cipla:
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 31,142.00 24,008.70 29.71
Other Income 1,216.30 819.8 48.37
Total Income 32,358.30 24,828.50 30.33
Total Expenditure 24,343.90 19,055.60 27.75
Operating Profit 8,014.40 5,772.90 38.83
Interest 114.2 76.3 49.67
Gross Profit 7,900.20 5,696.60 38.68
Depreciation 801.8 550.5 45.65
56
Tax 1,022.00 1,050.00 -2.67
Reported PAT 6,076.40 4,096.10 48.35
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIESDr. Reddy's Laboratories was established in 1984 by Dr. Anji Reddy. It is one of the top
pharmaceutical companies in the country. It got listed on the New York Stock Exchange on
11th April 2001; it is the first Asia-Pacific company (outside Japan) to be listed there. The
company has developed from a bulk drug (API) manufacture to a vertically integrated global
pharmaceutical company.
The company manufactures and markets its products like finished dosages, API (Bulk
Actives), and biologics in more than 100 countries. The company has quality, innovation,
continuous learning, teamwork, and social responsibility embedded in its core values.
Recently the company has received Global HR Excellence Award for Innovative HR Practices
at the Asia-Pacific HRM Congress 2007. It has also received Best Recruitment and Staffing in
class Award for the Best Overall Recruitment and Staffing Organization and Employer
Branding Award 2007 for excellence in Human Resources for talent management.
Dr. Reddy's Lab is into various social initiatives for the prosperity of the society. The various
organizations that the company supports are Dr. Reddy's Foundation, NAANDI Foundation and
Centre for Social Initiative & Management (CSIM).
Corporate Address:
Discovery Research
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.
Bollaram Road, Miyapur
Hyderabad 500 049, India
Tel +91 40 2304 5439
Fax +91 40 2304 5438
Annual Result of Dr. Reddy's lab:
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
57
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 16,250.80 17,402.00 -6.62
Other Income 713.4 757.4 -5.81
Total Income 16,964.20 18,159.40 -6.58
Total Expenditure 15,496.40 14,394.00 7.66
Operating Profit 1,467.80 3,765.40 -61.02
Interest 99.6 14.8 572.97
Gross Profit 1,368.20 3,750.60 -63.52
Depreciation 924.6 717.2 28.92
Tax -211 201.5 -204.71
Reported PAT 654.6 2,831.90 -76.88
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
GLAXO SMITHKLINEGlaxo SmithKline is the world's leading research based pharmaceuticals company. It was
formed on December 27, 2000 as a result of merger of two leading international organizations
viz., GlaxoWellcome and Smithkline Beecham.
The company is working hard to improve the quality of the human life by enabling people to
do more, feel better and live longer. It believes that there is no achievement without integrity.
The company has its headquarters in UK with operations based in USA, and has 85
manufacturing sites in over 37 countries. The company has combined sales of over 20 billion
pounds, market share of about 7%, and intellectual property of more than 100,000 employees
worldwide.
Out of these 100,000 employees, approximately 35% are in manufacturing units, 16% are in
R&D, and 40% are in sales and marketing. The manufacturing plants of the company in India
are located in Nabha, Rajahmundry and Sonepat, and have employee strength of about 2700.
GSK Consumer healthcare Ltd. and GSK Pharmaceuticals Ltd. are the two businesses of GSK
58
in India with headquarters at Gurgaon, Haryana. Its products include:
1. GI & Analgesics: Crocin, and Eno
2. Rubefacients: Iodex
3. Nutritional: Boost, Horlicks, Viva, and Maltova
Contact Address:
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare,
DLF Phase I, Gurgaon – 122002
Haryana, India.
Ph: 0124-2540700/ 5057700
e-mail: [email protected]
Annual Results of Glaxo:
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 16,775.70 15,758.90 6.45
Other Income 958.4 656.4 46.01
Total Income 17,734.10 16,415.30 8.03
Total Expenditure 12,016.10 11,478.90 4.68
Operating Profit 5,718.00 4,936.40 15.83
Interest 0 0
Gross Profit 5,718.00 4,936.40 15.83
Depreciation 158.5 157.3 0.76
Tax 1,942.30 1,716.30 13.17
Reported PAT 5,455.10 5,020.80 8.65
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
J B CHEMICALS &PHARMACEUTICAL Ltd.
J B Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (JBCPL) is a global pharmaceutical manufacturing
company that supplies wide range of innovative specialty medicines to national as well as
59
international market. It's committed to develop quality products at affordable prices.
Its product range comprises of pharmaceutical specialty in various herbal remedies, dosage
forms, generic drugs, diagnostics, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). Recently, it has
entered therapeutic segment, such as respiratory, CNS, and anti-diabetics. The company
receives around 52% of its revenue from its exports to USA, Europe, Latin America, Africa,
and SE Asia.
The top brands of the company are:
a) Doktor Mom (Brand in cough and cold segment)
b) Metrogyl ( Brand in Metronidazole molecule)
c) Rantac (Brand in gastro segment)
d) Nicardia ( Brand in cardiovascular therapeutic segment)
e) OF ( Brand in Ofloxacin molecule)
The company has taken various assignments as a part of its corporate responsibility. In a
rehabilitation construction project for the earthquake-affected victims, it had built 185 dwelling
units at the cost of Rs.1.25 crores. Mrs. Jayaben Mody hospital and Sanskar Bharati Trust
School in Bharuch are examples of corporate social responsibility of the company.
Corporate Address:
Neelam Centre
B Wing, 4th floor, Hind Cycle Road Worli
Mumbai 400030, India
Annual Results of JBCPL:
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 3,716.38 3,145.54 18.15
Other Income 130.27 120.11 8.46
Total Income 3,846.65 3,265.65 17.79
60
Total Expenditure 3,036.61 2,497.29 21.6
Operating Profit 810.04 768.36 5.43
Interest 34.81 21.94 58.7
Gross Profit 775.23 746.42 3.86
Depreciation 104.89 94.49 11
Tax 78.5 141.52 -44.53
Reported PAT 591.84 510.4 15.96
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA Ltd.
Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. (NPIL) is among the largest pharmaceuticals companies with an
inimitable mix of inorganic and organic growth. It has supreme record of managing JV's/
Alliances/ partnership. NPIL had a net sales turnover of US $313 million in 2005-06.
NPIL was established in 1988, when Piramal group acquired a small formulation company
named Nicholas Laboratories from Sara Lee. It has joint ventures and alliances with some of
the finest global names in the industry, including Allergan Inc., USA; UK; F. Hoffmann-La
Roche Ltd., Switzerland; Gilead Sciences, USA; Cheissi, Italy; and IVAX Corp; UK.
The company products have a wide range and include nine key therapeutic areas such as
Neuro-psychiatry, Cardio-vascular, Diabetes Management, Respiratory, Anti-infective,
Oncology, Gastro-intestinal, NSAIDS and Dermatology.
Nicholas is the leader in the cardio-vascular segment and has a strong market share in Anti-
Diabetics Segment, Antibiotics & Respiratory Segments, Neuro-psychiatry and Pain
Management.
Phensedyl, Ismo, Supradyn, Gardenal, Stemetil, Haemaccel and Rejoint are the biggest brands
of the company and they bring about 67% of the Revenue. Other secondary brands such as
Paraxin, Flagyl and Omnatax contribute to around 24% of the Revenues.
In India it has around 2700 robust field personnel. NPIL has recently acquired Pfizer's
61
Morepeth's manufacturing unit in UK and become one of the leading custom manufacturing
organizations across the world.
Corporate Address:
Nicholas Piramal India Limited
Nicholas Piramal Tower
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013
Tel: 91-22-30466666
Annual results of Nicholas Piramal:
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 12,582.70 14,545.40 -13.49
Other Income 178 44.5 300
Total Income 12,760.70 14,589.90 -12.54
Total Expenditure 10,844.80 11,984.40 -9.51
Operating Profit 1,915.90 2,605.50 -26.47
Interest 175 164.2 6.58
Gross Profit 1,740.90 2,441.30 -28.69
Depreciation 474.2 396.1 19.72
Tax 367.2 -51.8 -808.88
Reported PAT 1,695.70 1,880.10 -9.81
*Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
RANBAXY LABORTORIES Ltd.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. is a research based International pharmaceutical company with its
headquarters in India. It manufactures a range of high quality, affordable generic drugs. The
62
company has manufacturing facilities in around 9 countries. It has strong presence in around
49 countries, products available in around 125 countries globally. It has dedicated workforce
of about 10,500 employees representing 51 different countries.
Ranbaxy was established in 1961 and went public in the year 1973. It has global sales of US
$1340 million for the year ended on 31st December, 2006. It has the largest market in USA
(sales appx. US $380 million); then come Europe and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China,
South Africa).
Ranbaxy has a strong R&D competence that provides a sustainable competitive advantage to the
company. It has scholarly pool of about 1100 scientists, engaged in out-of-box researches.
Ranbaxy spends over 7% of its sales on R&D. Licensing of once-a-day Ciprofloxacin
formulation, using NDDS (Novel Drug Delivery System) on a worldwide basis, was the first
international success for the company.
Ranbaxy is focused on Discovery and development of drugs on anti-infective, urology,
respiratory/ inflammatory and metabolic diseases.
Top ten molecules of the company are:
1. Co-amoxiclav
2. Amoxicillin
3. Ciprofloxacin
4. Cephalexin
5. Simvastatin
6. Isotretinoin
7. Cefaclor
8. Clarithromycin
9. Cefpodoxime Proxetil
10. Ketorolac Tromethamine
Corporate office:
Plot 90, Sector 32, Gurgaon -122001 (Haryana), INDIAPh: +91-124-4135000Fax: +91-124-4135001 Web site: www.ranbaxy.com
63
Annual Results of Ranbaxy
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 39,735.60 34,901.30 13.85
Other Income 795.7 2,096.60 -62.05
Total Income 40,531.30 36,997.90 9.55
Total Expenditure 34,141.10 34,243.70 -0.3
Operating Profit 6,390.20 2,754.20 132.02
Interest 581 264.1 119.99
Gross Profit 5,809.20 2,490.10 133.29
Depreciation 1,117.60 1,013.30 10.29
Tax 601.1 -223.4 -369.07
Reported PAT 3,864.50 2,237.00 72.75
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.Serum Institute of India Ltd. was established in 1966 with the objective of producing life-
saving immuno-biologicals, which were imported at higher prices as they were in shortage
those days. It's an organization that concentrates on vaccines and other biological.
Serum Institute of India, producer of measles and DTP group of vaccines, meets 100%
requirement for measles vaccine of Govt. of India. It is the leading exporter of vaccines and
immuno-biologicals. It has gained global recognition by exporting its products to more than
145 countries. Its products have been supplied to various global vaccination programmes
conducted by International Health Agencies like WHO, UNICEF & PAHO.
The company has received several acknowledgements and awards from International as well as
64
local agencies for high quality products. It has 64 FDA approved Production experts and 45
FDA approved Testing experts. The experts are regularly sent for training to various countries
like USA, UK, France, and Netherlands so as to integrate latest advances in production and
quality testing standards.
In 1977, Serum Institute of India Research Foundation was founded with the objective of
research in the fields of medical sciences and in natural and applied sciences.
In July 1993, Serum International Ltd. was created to fulfill the need of the pharmaceuticals
like Calcium Supplements, Haematinics, Anti-diarrhoeals, Hormones, Digestives, etc.
And recently Serum Institute of India has set up a sector specific SEZ, Serum Bio Pharma Park,
for biotechnology and pharmaceuticals products.
With the high quality vaccine production facilities, the company is working to bring down the
prices of newer vaccines such as Rabies vaccine, Combination vaccine, Hepatitis-B vaccine,
etc.
Category of the product
65
Contact Details
Serum Institute of India Ltd.,212/2, Hadapsar,
Off Soli Poonawala Road,
Pune-411028,
India.
Ph: +91-20-26993900+91-20-26993921
E-mail: [email protected]
WOCKHARDT LIMITEDWockhardt is one of the top global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. It has
market capitalization of about US $1 billion and annual turnover of about US $400 million.
66
Europe and US pharma markets account for about 50% of Wockhardt's revenue.
Wockhardt has six dedicated manufacturing plants built in accordance with international
standards. It has a competent, multi-disciplinary research team of over 450 skilled scientists.
It owns 6 breakthrough biotechnology products and more than 250 patent filings. It has a
strong presence in international pharmaceutical market. Its product portfolio comprises of
biopharmaceuticals, formulations, vaccines, nutrition products, and active pharmaceuticals
ingredients (API).
Its products include:
Biopharmaceuticals
Topical (Creams and Ointments)
Sterile (Injectables)
Orals (Tablets and Liquids)
Wockhardt has headquarters in India and three subsidiaries in UK, US and Ireland. It possesses
11 manufacturing plants in 3 countries viz. India, Ireland and UK. The four successful
acquisitions done by Wockhardt in the European market have strengthened the global position
of the company.
Corporate Address:
Wockhardt Limited
Wockhardt towers,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051,
Maharashtra, India.
Tel.: + 91 - 22 - 26534444
Fax: + 91 - 22 - 26534242
Email: [email protected]
Annual Results of Wockhardt:
Annual Unaudited Results (Rs. in Millions)
67
(12 Months) (12 Months) % Changes
Sales Turnover 11,345.00 9,631.00 17.8
Other Income 219 210 4.29
Total Income 11,564.00 9,841.00 17.51
Total Expenditure 8,397.00 6,925.00 21.26
Operating Profit 3,167.00 2,916.00 8.61
Interest -311 20 -1655
Gross Profit 3,478.00 2,896.00 20.1
Depreciation 348 242 43.8
Tax 391 269 45.35
Reported PAT 2,135.00 2,385.00 -10.48
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
CHAPTER-3-CATEGORIES OF MEDICINES
General drugs
68
A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living
organism, alters normal bodily function. There is no single, precise definition, as there are
different meanings in drug control law, government regulations, medicine, and colloquial usage
In pharmacology, a drug is "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or
diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being." Drugs may be
prescribed for a limited duration, or on a regular basis for chronic disorders.
Drugs can be classified in various ways, such as by chemical properties, mode or route of
administration, biological system affected, or therapeutic effects. An elaborate and widely used
classification system is the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (ATC
system). The World Health Organization keeps a list of essential medicines.
A sampling of classes of drugs includes:
1. Antipyretics: reducing fever (pyrexia/pyresis)
2. Analgesics: reducing pain (painkillers)
3. Ant malarial drugs: treating malaria
4. Antibiotics: inhibiting germ growth
5. Antiseptics: prevention of germ growth near burns, cuts and wounds
Types of drugs
For the gastrointestinal tract (digestive system)
Upper digestive tract: antacids, reflux suppressants, antiflatulents, antidopaminergics,
proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2-receptor antagonistss, cytoprotectants, prostaglandin
analogues
Lower digestive tract: laxatives, antispasmodics, antidiarrhoeals, bile acid sequestrants,
opioid
For the cardiovascular system
69
General: β-receptor blockers ("beta blockers"), calcium channel blockers, diuretics,
cardiac glycosides, antiarrhythmics, nitrate, antianginals, vasoconstrictors, vasodilators,
peripheral activators
Affecting blood pressure (antihypertensive drugs): ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor
blockers, α blockers, calcium channel blockers
Coagulation: anticoagulants, heparin, antiplatelet drugs, fibrinolytics, anti-hemophilic
factors, haemostatic drugs
Atherosclerosis/cholesterol inhibitors: hypolipidaemic agents, statins.
For the central nervous system
Drugs affecting the central nervous system include: hypnotics, anaesthetics, antipsychotics,
antidepressants (including tricyclic antidepressants, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, lithium salts,
and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)), antiemetics, anticonvulsants/antiepileptics,
anxiolytics, barbiturates, movement disorder (e.g., Parkinson's disease) drugs, stimulants
(including amphetamines), benzodiazepines, cyclopyrrolones, dopamine antagonists,
antihistamines, cholinergics, anticholinergics, emetics, cannabinoids, and 5-HT (serotonin)
antagonists.
For pain & consciousness (analgesic drugs)
The main classes of painkillers are NSAIDs, opioids and various orphans such as paracetamol,
tricyclic antidepressants and anticonvulsants.
For musculo-skeletal disorders
The main categories of drugs for musculoskeletal disorders are: NSAIDs (including COX-2
selective inhibitors), muscle relaxants, neuromuscular drugs, and anticholinesterases.
For the eye
General: adrenergic neurone blocker, astringent, ocular lubricant
Diagnostic: topical anesthetics, sympathomimetics, parasympatholytics, mydriatics,
cycloplegics
70
Anti-bacterial: antibiotics, topical antibiotics, sulfa drugs, aminoglycosides,
fluoroquinolones
Anti-fungal: imidazoles, polyenes
Anti-inflammatory: NSAIDs, corticosteroids
Anti-allergy: mast cell inhibitors
Anti-glaucoma: adrenergic agonists, beta-blockers, carbonic anhydrase
inhibitors/hyperosmotics, cholinergics, miotics, parasympathomimetics, prostaglandin
agonists/prostaglandin inhibitors. nitroglycerin
For the ear, nose and oropharynx
sympathomimetics, antihistamines, anticholinergics, NSAIDs, steroids, antiseptics, local
anesthetics, antifungals, cerumenolyti
For the respiratory system
bronchodilators, NSAIDs, anti-allergics, antitussives, mucolytics, decongestants corticosteroids,
Beta2-adrenergic agonists, anticholinergics, steroids
For endocrine problems
androgens, antiandrogens, gonadotropin, corticosteroids, human growth hormone, insulin,
antidiabetics (sulfonylureas, biguanides/metformin, thiazolidinediones, insulin), thyroid
hormones, antithyroid drugs, calcitonin, diphosponate, vasopressin analogues
For the reproductive system or urinary system
antifungal, alkalising agents, quinolones, antibiotics, cholinergics, anticholinergics,
anticholinesterases, antispasmodics, 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, selective alpha-1 blockers,
sildenafils, fertility medications
For contraception
71
Hormonal contraception
Ormeloxifene
Spermicide
For obstetrics and gynecology
NSAIDs, anticholinergics, haemostatic drugs, antifibrinolytics, Hormone Replacement Therapy
(HRT), bone regulators, beta-receptor agonists, follicle stimulating hormone, luteinising
hormone, LHRH
gamolenic acid, gonadotropin release inhibitor, progestogen, dopamine agonists, oestrogen,
prostaglandins, gonadorelin, clomiphene, tamoxifen, Diethylstilbestrol
For the skin
emollients, anti-pruritics, antifungals, disinfectants, scabicides, pediculicides, tar products,
vitamin A derivatives, vitamin D analogues, keratolytics, abrasives, systemic antibiotics, topical
antibiotics, hormones, desloughing agents, exudate absorbents, fibrinolytics, proteolytics,
sunscreens, antiperspirants, corticosteroids
For infections and infestations
antibiotics, antifungals, antileprotics, antituberculous drugs, antimalarials, anthelmintics,
amoebicides, antivirals, antiprotozoals
For the immune system
vaccines, immunoglobulins, immunosuppressants, interferons, monoclonal antibodies
For allergic disorders
anti-allergics, antihistamines, NSAIDs
For nutrition
72
tonics, iron preparations, electrolytes, parenteral nutritional supplements, vitamins, anti-obesity
drugs, anabolic drugs, haematopoietic drugs, food product drugs
For neoplastic disorders
cytotoxic drugs, therapeutic antibodies, sex hormones, aromatase inhibitors, somatostatin
inhibitors, recombinant interleukins, G-CSF, erythropoietin
For euthanasia
An euthanaticum is used for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
Euthanasia is not permitted by law in many countries, and consequently medicines will not be
licensed for this use in those countries.
Legal considerations
Drugs may be divided into over-the-counter drugs (OTC) which may be available without
special restrictions, and prescription only medicine (POM), which must be prescribed by a
licensed medical practitioner. The precise distinction between OTC and prescription depends on
the legal jurisdiction. A third category, behind-the-counter medications (BTMs), is implemented
in some jurisdictions. BTMs do not require a prescription, but must be kept in the dispensary, not
visible to the public, and only be sold by a pharmacist or pharmacy technician.
The International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations imposes a world law of
prohibition of certain medications. They publish a lengthy list of chemicals and plants whose
trade and consumption (where applicable) is forbidden. OTC medications are sold without
restriction as they are considered safe enough that most people will not hurt themselves
accidentally by taking it as instructed. Many countries, such as the United Kingdom have a third
category of pharmacy medicines which can only be sold in registered pharmacies, by or under
the supervision of a pharmacist.
For patented medications, countries may have certain mandatory licensing programs which
compel, in certain situations, a medication's owner to contract with other agents to manufacture
73
the drug. Such programs may deal with the contingency of a lack of medication in the event of a
serious epidemic of disease, or may be part of efforts to ensure that disease treating drugs, such
as AIDS drugs, are available to countries which cannot afford the drug owner's price.
In some countries, government-regulated cannabis is available by prescription.
Blockbuster drug
A blockbuster drug is a drug generating more than $1 billion of revenue for its owner each year.
A recent report from Urch Publishing estimated that about one third of the pharma market by
value is accounted for by blockbusters. About 100 products are blockbusters. The top seller was
Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering medication marketed by Pfizer with sales of $12.2 billion.
Beyond this purely arbitrary financial consideration,
"In the pharmaceutical industry, a blockbuster drug is one that achieves acceptance by
prescribing physicians as a therapeutic standard for, most commonly, a highly prevalent
chronic (rather than acute) condition. Patients often take the medicines for long periods."
Leading blockbuster drugs
Drug
Trade name
Company Sales (billion $), year
Atorvastatin Lipitor Pfizer 12 (2007) <
Clopidogrel PlavixBristol-Myers Squibb
and sanofi-aventis5.9 (2005)
Enoxaparin Lovenox or Clexane Sanofi-Aventis
Celecoxib Celebrex Pfizer 2.3 (2007)
Omeprazole Losec/Prilosec AstraZeneca 2.6 (2004)
Esomeprazole Nexium AstraZeneca 3.3 (2003)
Fexofenadine Telfast/Allegra Aventis 1.87 (2004)
Quetiapine Seroquel AstraZeneca 1.5 (2003)
74
Metoprolol Seloken/Toprol AstraZeneca 1.3 (2003)
Budesonide Pulmicort/Rhinocort AstraZeneca1.3 (2003) (plus some fraction of
the $0.6bn sales of Symbicort)
Environmental impact
Since the 1990s water contamination by pharmaceuticals has been an environmental issue of
concern. Most pharmaceuticals are deposited in the environment through human consumption
and excretion, and are often filtered ineffectively by wastewater treatment plants which are not
designed to manage them. Once in the water they can have diverse, subtle effects on organisms,
although research is limited. Pharmaceuticals may also be deposited in the environment through
improper disposal, runoff from sludge fertilizer and reclaimed wastewater irrigation, and leaky
sewage. In 2009 an investigative report by Associated Press concluded that U.S. manufacturers
had legally released 271 million pounds of drugs into the environment, 92% of which was the
antiseptics phenol and hydrogen peroxide. It could not distinguish between drugs released by
manufacturers as opposed to the pharmaceutical industry. It also found that an estimated 250
million pounds of pharmaceuticals and contaminated packaging were discarded by hospitals and
long-term care facilities.
Pharmacoenvironmentology is a branch of pharmacology and a form of pharmacovigilance
which deals entry of chemicals or drugs into the environment after elimination from humans and
animals post-therapy. It deals specifically with those pharmacological agents that have impact on
the environment via elimination through living organisms subsequent to pharmacotherapy, while
Ecopharmacology is concerned with the entry of chemicals or drugs into the environment
through any route and at any concentration disturbing the balance of ecology (ecosystem), as a
consequence. Ecopharmacology is a broad term that includes studies of “PPCPs” irrespective of
doses and route of entry into environment.
Drugs banned in India
75
List of drugs prohibited for manufacturing and sale through Gazette notification under section
26A of drugs and cosmetic act 1940 by the ministry of health and family welfare.
DRUGS PROHIBITED FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION
1. Amidopyrine.
2. Fixed dose combinations of vitamins with anti-inflammatory agents and tranquilizers.
3. Fixed dose combinations of Atropine in Analgesics and Antipyretics.
4. Fixed dose combinations of Strychnine and Caffeine in tonics.
5.Fixed dose combinations of Yohimbine and Strychnine with Testosterone and Vitamins.
6. Fixed dose combinations of Iron with Strychnine, Arsenic and Yohimbine.
7. Fixed dose combinations of Sodium Bromide/chloral hydrate with other drugs.
8. Phenacetin.
9. Fixed dose combinations of antihistaminic with anti-diarrhoeals.
10. Fixed dose combinations of Penicillin with Sulphonamides.
11. Fixed dose combinations of Vitamins with Analgesics.
12.Fixed dose combinations of any other Tetracycline with Vitamin C.
13.Fixed dose combinations of Hydroxyquinoline group of drugs with any other drug except for
preparations meant for external use.
14. Fixed dose combinations of Corticosteroids with any other drug for internal use.
15. Fixed dose combinations of Chloramphenicol with any other drug for internal use.
76
16.Fixed dose combinations of crude Ergot preparations except those containing Ergotamine,
Caffeine, analgesics, antihistamines for the treatment of migraine, headaches.
17.Fixed dose combinations of Vitamins with Anti TB drugs except combination of Isoniazid
with Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6).
18. Penicillin skin/eye Ointment.
19. Tetracycline Liquid Oral preparations.
20. Nialamide.
21. Practolol.
22. Methapyrilene, its salts.
23. Methaqualone.
24. Oxytetracycline Liquid Oral preparations.
25. Demeclocycline Liquid Oral preparations.
26. Combination of anabolic Steroids with other drugs.
27.Fixed dose combination of Oestrogen and Progestin (other than oral contraceptive) containing
per tablet estrogen content of more than 50 mcg (equivalent to Ethinyl Estradiol) and progestin
content of more than 3 mg (equivalent to Norethisterone Acetate) and all fixed dose combination
injectable preparations containing synthetic Oestrogen and Progesterone. (Subs. By Noti. No.
743 (E) dt 10-08-1989)
28.Fixed dose combination of Sedatives/ hypnotics/anxiolytics with analgesics-antipyretics.
29.Fixed dose combination of Rifampicin, isoniazid and Pyrazinamide, except those which
provide daily adult dose given below:
77
Drugs Minimum Maximum
Rifampicin 450 mg 600 mg
Isoniazid 300 mg 400 mg
Pyrazinamide 1000mg 1500 mg
30. Fixed dose combination of Histamine H-2 receptor antagonists with antacids except for those
combinations approved by Drugs Controller, India.
31.The patent and proprietary medicines of fixed dose combinations of essential oils with alcohol
having percentage higher than 20% proof except preparations given in the Indian
Pharmacopoeia.
32. All Pharmaceutical preparations containing Chloroform exceeding 0.5% w/w or v/v
whichever is appropriate.
33.Fixed dose combination of Ethambutol with INH other than the following: INH
Ethambutol 200 mg. 600 mg. 300 mg. 800 mg.
34. Fixed dose combination containing more than one antihistamine.
35.Fixed dose combination of any anthelmintic with cathartic/purgative except for
piperazine/Santonim.
36. Fixed dose combination of Salbutamol or any other drug having primarily bronchodilatory
activity with centrally acting anti-tussive and/or antihistamine.
37.Fixed dose combination of laxatives and/or anti-spasmodic drugs in enzyme preparations.
38.Fixed dose combination of Metoclopramide with systemically absorbed drugs except fixed
dose combination of metoclopramide with aspirin/paracetamol
78
39.Fixed dose combination of centrally acting, antitussive with antihistamine, having high
atropine like activity in expectorants.
40.Preparations claiming to combat cough associated with asthma containing centrally acting
antitussive and/ or an antihistamine.
41.Liquid oral tonic preparations containing glycerophosphates and/or other phosphates and / or
central nervous system stimulant and such preparations containing alcohol more than 20%
proof.
42.Fixed dose combination containing Pectin and/or Kaolin with any drug which is systemically
absorbed from GI tract except for combinations of Pectin and/or Kaolin with drugs not
systemically absorbed.
43. Chloral Hydrate as a drug.
44. Dovers Powder I.P.
45. Dover’s Powder Tablets I.P.
46.Antidiarrhoeal formulations containing Kaolin or Pectin or Attapulgite or Activated
Charcoal.
47.Antidiarrhoeal formulations containing Phthalyl Sulphathiazole or Sulphaguanidine or
Succinyl Sulphathiazole.
48.Antidiarrhoeal formulations containing Neomycin or Streptomycin or Dihydrostreptomycin
including their respective salts or esters.
49.Liquid Oral antidiarrhoeals or any other dosage form for pediatric use containing
Diphenoxylate Lorloperamide or Atropine or Belladona including their salts or esters or
metabolites Hyoscyamine or their extracts or their alkaloids.
79
50.Liquid Oral antidiarrhoeals or any other dosage form for pediatric use containing halogenated
hydroxyquinolines.
51. Fixed dose combination of antidiarrhoeals with electrolytes.
52. Patent and Proprietary Oral Rehydration Salts other than those conforming to the
53. Fixed dose combination of Oxyphenbutazone or Phenylbutazone with any other drug.
54. Fixed dose combination of Analgin with any other drug.
55. Fixed dose combination of dextropropoxyphene with any other drug other than anti-
spasmodics and/or non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS).
56. Fixed dose combination of a drug, standards of which are prescribed in the Second Schedule
to the said Act with an Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug.
57. Mepacrine Hydrochloride (Quinacrine and its salts) in any dosage form for use for female
sterilization or contraception.
58. Fenfluramine and Dexfenfluramine.
59. Fixed dose combination of Diazepam and Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride .
60. Rimonabant.
LIST OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED
The Principal Notification GSR 578 (E) dt.23.7.83.
Added b GSR 4(E) dated 31.01.1984
Added b GSR 322(E) dated 03.05.1984\
Amended by GSR 863(E) dated 22.11.1985
80
Amended by GSR 743(E) dated 10.08.1989
Amended by GSR 1057(E) dated 03.11.1988
Added by GSR 999(E) dated 26.12.1990
Added by GSR 69(E) dated 11.02.1991
Added by GSR 304(E) dated 7.06.1990
Added by GSR 444(E) dated 7.06.1992
Added by GSR 111(E) dated 22.02.1994
Added by GSR 731(E) dated 30.09.1994
Added by GSR 848(E) dated 7.12.1994
Added by GSR 57(E) dated 7.02.1995
Added by GSR 633(E) dated 13.09.1995
Added by GSR 793(E) dated 13.03.1995
Added by GSR 93(E) dated 25.05.1997
Added by GSR 499(E) dated 14.08.1998
Added by GSR 394(E) dated 19.05.1999
Added by GSR 405(E) dated 3.06.1999
Added by GSR 169(E) dated 12.03.2001
Added by GSR 290(E) dated 16.04.2008
Added by GSR 885(E) dated 11.12.2009
81
LIST OF DRUGS PROHIBITED FOR IMPORT
1. Nialamide
2. Practolol
3. Amidopyrine
4. Phenacetin
5. Methapyrilene and its salts
6. Methaqualone
7. Chloral Hydrate as a drug
8. Mepacrine Hydrochloride ( Quinacrine and its Salts) in any dosage form for use for female
sterilization or contraception.
9. Fenfluramine and Dexfenfluramine
10. Rimonabant
LIST OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED
Added by GSR 48(E) dated 31.1.1984
Added by GSR 303(E) dated 7.6.1991
Added by GSR 498(E) dated 14.8.1998
Added by GSR 884(E) dated 11.12.2009
82
DRUGS PROHIBITED FOR MANUFACTURE , SALE AND DISTRIBUTION FROM
SUBSEQUENT DATE
Drugs Formulation Effective date Notification
1.Cosmetics Licensed as toothpaste/tooth With immediate effect GSR 444(E) dt.30.4.92
powder containing tobacco.
2.Parenteal Preparations fixed dose Jan 1,1998 GSR 93(E) dt.25.2.97
combination of streptomycin with
Penicillin
3.Fixed dose combination of Vitamin B1, Jan 1,2001 GSR 702(E) dt.14.10.99
Vitamin B6 and Vitamin B12 for
human use
4.Fixed dose combination of hemoglobin Sep 1,2000 GSR 814(E) dt.16.12.99
in any form (natural or synthetic).
5.Fixed dose combination of Pancreatin or Sept. 1,2000 GSR 814(E) dt.16.12.99
Pancrelipase containing amylase, protease
and lipase with any other enzyme.
6. Fixed dose combination of Nitrofurantoin Jan 1,2002 GSR 170(E) dt.12.3.01
and trimethoprim.
7.Fixed dose combination of Phenobarbitone Jan 1,2002 GRS 170(E) dt.12.3.01
83
with any anti-asthmatic drugs.
8.Fixed dose combination of Phenobarbitone Jan 1,2002 GSR 170(E) dt.12.3.01
with Hyoscin and/or Hyoscyamine
9.Fixed dose combination of Phenobarbitone Jan 1,2002 GSR 170(E) dt.12.3.01
with Ergotamine and/or Belladona
10.Fixed dose combination of Haloperidol Jan 1,2002 GSR 170(E) dt.12.3.01
with any anti-cholinergic agent including
Propantheline Bromide.
11.Fixed dose combination of Nalidixic Acid Jan 1,2002 GSR 170(E) dt.12.3.01
with any anti-amoebic including Metronidazole.
12.Fixed dose combination of Loperamide Jan 1,2002 GSR 170(E) dt.12.3.01
Hydrochloride with Furazolidone
13.Fixed dose combination of Cyproheptadine Jan 1,2003 GSR 170(E) dt.12.3.01
with Lysine or Peptone.
14.Astemizole Apr.1,2003 GSR 191(E) dt.5.3.03
15.Terfinadine Apr.1,2003 GSR 191(E) dt.5.3.03
16.Fenformin Oct.1,2003 GSR 780(E) dt.1.10.03
17.Rafecoxib Dec 13,2004 GSR 810(E) dt. 13.12.04
18.Valdecoxib July 25,2005 GSR510(E) dt. 25.07.05
and it's formulation
84
19.Diclofenac and its formulations July 4, 2008 GSR 499(E) dt.4.07.08
for animal use
These drugs are prohibited for manufacturing and sale through Gazette notification under section
26A of drugs and cosmetic act 1940 by the ministry of health and family welfare.
Generic drug
A Generic Drug is a copy that is the same as a brand name drug in dosage, safety, strength, how
it is taken, quality, performance and intended use. Generic simply means that the drug is not sold
as the brand name, but it has the identical strength, dosage and route of administration and the
same active ingredients as the brand-name drug. The use of generic drugs is now widely
accepted and they are commonly prescribed by physicians and dispensed at hospitals. While
manufacturing generic drugs, the drug companies use the same active ingredients and are shown
to work the same way in the body, they have the same risks and benefits as their brand name
counterparts. Also, generic drugs have the same quality, strength, purity and stability as brand
name drugs. It is seen that Generic Drugs work in the same way and in the same amount of time
as branded drugs. The generic drugs are less expensive as compared to branded drugs as generic
manufacturers do not have the investment costs of the developer of a new drug. New drugs are
generally developed under patent protection. The patent protects the investment and the
associated expense, viz. research, development, marketing and promotion. When patents are
nearing expiration, manufacturers usually approach the Government/Drug Control Department to
sell generic versions. In the process, the consumers get genetic drugs at substantially lower costs.
Both branded and generic drugs are manufactured by conforming to International standards.
Brand name drugs are usually given patent protection for 20 years from the date of submission of
the patent. This provides protection for the innovator of such drugs to make good the initial costs
incurred by him, viz., research development and marketing expenses, to develop the new drug.
Many drug companies start manufacturing generic drugs once the patent license expires for a
branded drug. The physician plays a vital role to determine whether his patient needs a branded
drug or generic drug. This is because a generic substitution may not be appropriate in certain
circumstances where only a branded drug would be suitable for the patient. There are only rare
circumstances where substituting a generic drug for a brand name product (or vice versa) may
85
not be appropriate for a particular patient. For some patients, generic substitution may be
inappropriate due to reactions to inactive ingredients or problems with the pill shape, colour or
related characteristics. Patients should become assertive and insist upon the doctors to prescribe
generic drugs if available, so that the patient would get the product at the best possible price.
Pharmacists also play a vital role in educating the doctors about the availability of generic drugs.
Thus the right medication could be given to the patients at the best possible price.
Generics are as good as branded drugs and in view of third party administrators having entered in
the Indian health care scenario, the patients are sanctioned only the minimum amount when
hospitals send authorizations for approval of treatment. Thus if generic drugs are bought by the
patient, the patient may not lose money by going in for branded drugs, which are too costly.
Health care costs continue to rise. Therefore, consumers, providers and policymakers need to
assess the best way to keep health care affordable without adversely affecting access to quality
care.
With prescription drug (branded drug) costs serving as a major contributor to cost escalations,
generic drugs offer an important tool for reducing the rate of growth in overall health
expenditure. Generic drugs play an important role in health care and the availability of generic
drugs reduces the monopoly and oligopoly powers of the patent holder. The Government may
also impose compulsory licensing so as to make available the much needed generic drugs. It is
seen that many countries do not have the technological capability for manufacturing and
supplying generic drugs even if the laws of those countries permit them to do so. Brand name
and generic pharmaceutical industries are global in nature. Consequently, no serious attempt has
been made to integrate them. Many countries obtain their ingredients like fine chemicals from
other countries. Smaller countries that have a few generic industries are not able to operate due
to limited opportunities. Such countries export their generic produce to other countries to survive
in the industry. It has also been found that prices fall substantially once the drugs are off the
patent, if there are generic producers. When more generic producers enter the market, more is the
fall in the prices.
In this context, it may be of interest to note that in Brazil, right combination of policies in the
health sector and intellectual property rights enabled the country to tackle the AIDS crisis
effectively. Thus development of generic industries would not only help one country but other
countries too. This would facilitate meeting the internal demands and exporting the surplus.
86
Generic manufacturers should be permitted to supply drugs to the people at cheaper rates, which
will reduce the health care cost drastically.
Differences between a brand name drug and a generic drug:
The innovator of a branded drug does research to discover the new biochemical
substances that eventually become new drugs.
This research is essential for finding new and better treatments for various diseases.
This process is expensive
he expense incurred by a pharmaceutical industry for coming out with a branded drug is
passed on to the consumer, but most of the money is ploughed back into research and
development of new products.
In America, FDA grants the innovator company a patent of exclusivity making it the only
company able to produce and sell the drug.
The patent expires 20 years from the commencement of drug development to drug
marketing. When it does, generic companies are then allowed to manufacture and sell the
drug.
Generic drugs offer significant savings to consumers. The cost of generic drugs averages
40 to 60 per cent below the cost of the innovator or brand name drug.
It may be noted that the generic company’s version of the drug has the same active
ingredient with the same chemical purity as the brand name drug. Obviously this results
in cost savings for the generic as it does not involve doing research as was done by the
original inventor. Also, it would cost less for the generic company to market its drugs and
thus the savings passed on to the patient.
Generic drugs are regulated like band name drugs. Consequently, both are safe and
effective when properly used.
Generic drugs today are manufactured by branded drug manufacturers also employing the
same technology and processes. The only differences are the labeling, tablet or capsule
design and the price.
Generic drugs are not inferior to brand name versions.
A generic drug is pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent to brand name drug.
87
Advantages of Generic Drugs:
The generic drugs often cost the consumer considerably less than brand name drugs. The
use of generic drugs can add up to marked savings for everyone in general but
particularly for the elderly who generally take more medications than the young and have
less available income for such items.
Generic drugs do not have unfavorable effect on an individual.
The pharmaceutical life cycle has four phases: research, development, patentee
commercialization and generic commercialization. When the product is in the research mode, a
research institution invents a new drug. Then a patent application is filed to preserve rights.
When the institution starts pre-clinical and clinical testing of the drugs, the development phase
begins. In the patentee commercialization phase, the innovator (patent holder) begins selling in at
least one country. In this process, doctors, patients, hospitals, public health agencies and insurers
get involved. Thus generic commercialization commences when the patent expires in any given
country and genetic companies start to sell at lower prices. In a country where a new product is
not patented, generic competition will begin immediately, e.g., AIDS drugs. Intellectual property
is a vital factor involving research and patients. Without patents, research and development
would be reduced. Without generics or other price constraints, access to medicine would be
impaired.
INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Today the Indian Pharmaceutical sector has become a prominent provider of healthcare products.
It meets 95% of the country’s medical needs. The total Indian production constitutes about 1.3%
of the world market in value terms and 8% in volume terms.
The Indian pharmaceutical industry is mounting up the value chain. From being a pure reverse
engineering industry focused on the domestic market, the industry is becoming research driven,
export oriented and globally becoming competitive.
The industry is dependent on its therapeutic presence and new categories, viz. cardiovascular,
central nervous system and anti diabetic are expanding at double digit growth rates.
The Indian companies are pooling their resources so as to tap the generic drug markets of the
developed countries.
Outsourcing in the fields of R&D and manufacturing will be the next best opportunity for the
industry. India has the best chemistry skills and low cost advantages in research and
88
manufacturing and skilled manpower, which will attract MNCs to set up shops here. The generic
drug industry is poised to enter a dramatic growth phase fueled by stronger generic drug
companies that have broad technological and diversified market capabilities.
As more and more patents expire, the generic portion of the pharmaceutical market is expected to
continue to have increased sales.
A generic drug (generic drugs, short: generics) is a drug which is produced and distributed
without patent protection. (The generic drug may still have a patent on the formulation but not on
the active ingredient.
Generics account for around 14 per cent of the healthcare market worldwide (Figure-1) and they
are growing at a phenomenal rate. The recent growth in the generics market has been largely
fuelled by the patent expiry of several blockbusters, and with around $12bn of innovative drugs
coming off patent in 2008.
Figure 1: Size of the generics market worldwide
Source: Drug Discovery and Development,
According to research by London-based researcher Global Insight, Indian drug makers having a
33 per cent share of the global generics market in 2007, compared with 4 per cent in 2005.
There are four main factors that helped Indian pharmaceutical manufacturers to emerge as
important generics manufacturers.
First, is the Indian Patents Act of 1970 This Act has been in force since 1972 until December 31,
2004. As per this Act, the Indian parliament granted patent rights only to manufacturing
89
processes, rather than to the end products themselves. Indian pharmaceutical firms were able to
take new drugs developed abroad, reverse-engineer the manufacturing process and begin
churning out generics. Consequent to these local firms went from controlling 30 percent of the
Indian drug market in 1972 to 77 percent in late 2004. Developing-world consumers, and even
some in Western markets, enjoyed the benefits of low prices and the quick introduction of the
latest wonder drugs. At present the country exports generic drugs to nearly 200 countries.
Chaudhuri (2005) has provided us with detailed analysis of the contribution of the pre 2005
Indian patent regime towards the building up of a generics industry in the country.
Second, research in India costs 40 per cent less than in the U.S. The cost of developing a drug
from scratch in India could be as low as $100 million while it is up to $1 billion in the West. In
other words the industry has a significant and sustainable cost advantage over international
peers;
Third, is the availability of skilled work force with strong chemistry skills;
Fourth, India has the largest number of US FDA approved manufacturing plants outside the
USA. It has the largest number of Drug Master Filings (DMF) outside the US.2 Indian
companies are also the leading companies participating in Para IV challenges.
A generic must contain the same active ingredients as the original formulation. According to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), generic drugs are identical or within an acceptable bioequivalent
range to the brand name counterpart with respect to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics properties.
By extension, therefore, generics are considered (by the FDA) identical in dose, strength, route of
administration, safety, efficacy, and intended use. The FDA's use of the word identical is very much a
legal interpretation, and is not literal. In most cases, generic products are available once the patent
protections afforded to the original developer have expired. When generic products become available, the
market competition often leads to substantially lower prices for both the original brand name product and
the generic forms. The time it takes a generic drug to appear on the market varies.
Generic drugs can save patients and insurance companies substantial costs. The principal reason for the
relatively low price of generic medicines is that competition increases among producers when drugs no
longer are protected by patents. Companies incur fewer costs in creating the generic drug, and are
therefore able to maintain profitability at a lower cost to consumers. The costs of these generic drugs are
so low that many developing countries can easily afford them. For example Thailand is going to import
90
millions of doses of the generic version of Plavix, a blood-thinning treatment to prevent heart attacks, at a
cost of 3 US cents per dose from India, the leading manufacturer of generic drugs.
Generic manufacturers do not incur the cost of drug discovery, and instead are able to reverse-engineer
known drug compounds to allow them to manufacture bioequivalent versions. Generic manufacturers also
do not bear the burden of proving the safety and efficacy of the drugs through clinical trials, since these
trials have already been conducted by the brand name company. It has been estimated that the average
cost to brand-name drug companies of discovering and testing a new innovative drug (with a new
chemical entity) may be as much as $800 million.
Generic drug companies may also receive the benefit of the previous marketing efforts of the brand-name
drug company, including media advertising, presentations by drug representatives, and distribution of free
samples. Many of the drugs introduced by generic manufacturers have already been on the market for a
decade or more, and may already be well-known to patients and providers (although often under their
branded name).
For as long as a drug patent lasts, a brand name company enjoys a period of “market exclusivity” or
monopoly, in which the company is able to set the price of the drug at a level which maximizes
profitability. This price often greatly exceeds the production costs of the drug, which can enable the drug
company to make a significant profit on their investment in research and development, thus enabling
them to fund the research and development of new medicines which most generic companies cannot
afford to do. The advantage of generic drugs to consumers comes in the introduction of competition,
which prevents any single company from dictating the overall market price of the drug. Competition is
also seen between generic and name-brand drugs with similar therapeutic uses when physicians or health
plans adopt policies of preferentially prescribing generic drugs as in step therapy. With multiple firms
producing the generic version of a drug the profit-maximizing price generally falls to the ongoing cost of
producing the drug, which is usually much lower than the monopoly price.
Legal concepts
Whether or not a mark is popularly identified as generalized, the owner of the mark may still be able to
enforce the proprietary rights which attach to the use or registration of the mark, so long as the mark
continues to exclusively identify the owner as the commercial origin of the applicable products or
services. If the mark does not perform this essential function and it is no longer possible to legally enforce
rights in relation to the mark, the mark may have become generic. In many legal systems (e.g., in the
91
United States but not in Germany) a generic mark forms part of the public domain and can be
commercially exploited by anyone. Nevertheless, there exists the possibility of a trademark to become a
revocable generic term in German (and European) trademark law.
The process by which trademark rights are diminished or lost as a result of common use in the
marketplace is sometimes known as generic idée. This process typically occurs over a period of time
where a mark is not used as a trademark (i.e., where it is not used to exclusively identify the products or
services of a particular business), where a mark falls into disuse entirely, or where the trademark owner
does not enforce its rights through actions for passing off or trademark infringement.
One risk factor which may lead to generic idée is the use of a trademark as a verb, noun, plural or
possessive, unless the mark itself is possessive or plural (e.g., "Friendly's" restaurants).
Patent issues
When can a generic drug be produced?
When a pharmaceutical company first markets a drug, it is usually under a patent that allows only the
pharmaceutical company that developed the drug to sell it. Generic drugs can be legally produced for
drugs where:
1) the patent has expired,
2) the generic company certifies the brand company's patents are either invalid, unenforceable or will not
be infringed,
3) for drugs which have never held patents,
4) in countries where a patent(s) is/are not in force.
The expiration of a patent removes the monopoly of the patent holder on drug sales licensing. Patent
lifetime differs from country to country, and typically there is no way to renew a patent after it expires. A
new version of the drug with significant changes to the compound could be patented, but this requires
new clinical trials. In addition, a patent on a changed compound does not prevent sales of the generic
versions of the original drug unless regulators take the original drug off the market.
92
This allows the company to recoup the cost of developing that particular drug. After the patent on a drug
expires, any pharmaceutical company can manufacture and sell that drug. Since the drug has already been
tested and approved, the cost of simply manufacturing the drug will be a fraction of the original cost of
testing and developing that particular drug.
Large pharmaceutical companies often spend millions of dollars protecting their patents from generic
competition. Apart from litigation, companies use other methods such as reformulation or licensing a
subsidiary (or another company) to sell generics under the original patent. Generics sold under license
from the patent holder are known as authorized generics; they are not affected by the 180 day
exclusivity period as they fall under the patent holder's original drug application.
A prime example of how this works is simvastatin (Zocor), a popular drug created and manufactured by
U.S. based pharmaceutical Merck & Co., which lost its US patent protection on June 23, 2006. India-
based Ranbaxy Laboratories (at the 80 mg strength) and Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (at
all other strengths) received 180 day exclusivity periods for simvastatin; due to Zocor's popularity, both
companies began marketing their products immediately after the patent expired. However, Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories also markets an authorized generic version of simvastatin under license from Zocor's
manufacturer, Merck & Co.; some packages of Dr. Reddy's simvastatin even show Merck as the actual
manufacturer and have Merck's logo on the bottom.
Approval and regulation
Ensuring bioequivalence:
Most nations require generic drug manufacturers to prove that their formulation exhibits bioequivalence
to the innovator product. In the U.S., the FDA must approve generic drugs just as innovator drugs must be
approved. The FDA requires the bioequivalence of the generic product to be between 80% and 125% of
that of the innovator product.
This value range is part of a statistical calculation and does not mean that FDA lets generic drugs differ
from the brand name counterpart by up to 45 percent. FDA recently evaluated 2,070 human studies
conducted between 1996 and 2007. These studies compared the absorption of brand name and generic
drugs into a person’s body. These studies were submitted to FDA to support approval of generics. The
average difference in absorption into the body between the generic and the brand name was 3.5 percent
and is comparable to differences between two different batches of a brand drug.
93
Bioequivalence, however, does not mean that generic drugs must be exactly the same (“pharmaceutical
equivalent”) as their innovator product counterparts, as chemical differences may exist (different salt or
ester – a “pharmaceutical alternative”).
A physician survey in the US found that only 17% of prescribing physicians correctly identified the
USFDA's standards for bioequivalency of generic drugs. A latest development to address this issue
enables interested doctors and consumers to check generic drug interactions and outcomes detail to the
specific drug and drug company.
The generic equivalent of name-brand warfarin has only been available under the trade name Coumadin
in North America until recently. Warfarin (either under the trade name or the generic equivalent) has a
narrow therapeutic window and requires frequent blood tests to make sure patients do not have a
subtherapeutic or a toxic level. A study performed in the Canadian province of Ontario showed that
replacing Coumadin with generic warfarin was considered safe. In spite of the study, many physicians are
not comfortable in allowing their patients to take the branded generic equivalent agents. As such, in
countries such as Australia where warfarin is prescribed under more than one brand name (Marevan in
1 mg, 3 mg, 5 mg respectively and Coumadin in 1 mg, 2 mg, 5 mg respectively), the pharmacist may not
substitute brand names.
Generic drug exclusivity
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration offers a 180 day exclusivity period to generic drug
manufacturers in specific cases. During this period only one (or sometimes a few) generic manufacturers
can produce the generic version of a drug. This exclusivity period is only used when a generic
manufacturer argues that a patent is invalid or is not violated in the generic production of a drug, and the
period acts as a reward for the generic manufacturer who is willing to risk liability in court and the cost of
patent court litigation. There is often contention around these 180 day exclusivity periods because a
generic producer does not have to produce the drug during this period and can file an application first to
prevent other generic producers from selling the drug.
Recently, the purpose of the exclusivity "bonus" provided for by the Hatch-Waxman
Amendments was turned on its head when the original patent holder, Cephalon, instituted patent
infringement suit against all companies holding generic exclusivity rights to manufacture
modafinil, the generic name for Cephalon's still-profitable stimulant drug, Provigil. "Settlement"
of this suit with Cephalon was hardly a risky endeavor for the generic manufacturers, as it was
94
Cephalon which agreed to pay Provigil's alleged infringers in excess of a billion dollars – if they
agreed not to market generics for Provigil during their period of exclusivity. In effect, Cephalon
was able to extend its exclusive right to manufacture Provigil even though Cephalon's patent for
Provigil had already run out.
Examples
A few examples of trademarks which have lost their legal protection are:
aspirin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG
escalator – originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company
thermos - originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH
yo-yo - originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company
zipper - originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich
While linoleum, coined by its inventor and patent holder Frederick Walton, is the first product
ruled by a court as generic, it was never trademarked.
Avoiding generic idée:
Trademark owners will naturally seek to maximize the popularity of their marks. However, generic use of
a trademark presents an inherent risk to the effective enforcement of trademark rights and may ultimately
lead to generic idée.
Trademark owners may take various steps to reduce the risk of generic idée, including educating
businesses and consumers on appropriate trademark use, avoiding use of their marks in a generic manner,
and systematically and effectively enforcing their trademark rights. If a trademark is associated with a
new invention, the trademark owner may also consider developing a generic term for the product to be
used in descriptive contexts, to avoid inappropriate use of the "house" mark. Such a term is called a
generic descriptor, and is frequently used immediately after the trademark to provide a description of the
product or service. For example, "Kleenex tissues" ("facial tissues" being the generic descriptor) or
"Velcro fasteners" for brand name hook-and-loop fasteners.
Where a trademark is used generically, a trademark owner may need to take special proactive measures to
retain exclusive rights to the trademark. Xerox corporation was able to generally prevent the generic idée
95
of its core trademark through an extensive public relations campaign advising consumers to "photocopy"
instead of "xerox" documents.
Another example is LEGO Company, with a library of 61 trademarks filed since the original LEGO
trademark in 1974. The Company printed in manuals in the 1970s and 1980s a request that customers call
the company's interlocking plastic building blocks "'LEGO blocks' or 'toys' and not 'LEGOs'." While
largely unheeded, use of the deprecated term remained largely confined to the company's own products
and generalization failed to occur.
Life Saving Drugs
Emergency Drugs/Life Saving Drugs: Drugs which require immediate administration within
minutes post or during a medical emergency. Medicines which have the potential to sustain life
and/ or prevent further complications.
The pharma sector seeks removal of excise duty on bulk drugs and formulation of anti-AIDS,
anti-cancer, anti-TB and other life-saving drugs.
Indian Pharma sector has made rapid strides in both global and domestic market. But the growth
pangs were severe for domestic players eyeing greater share of global pie.
The slowdown in generic approvals by USFDA, the payment problems witnessed in a few
developing markets since the last quarter and accelerated generalization and intense competition
together meant slower growth in global revenues for the domestic players.
But despite challenging environment, the domestic players continued their consolidation mode
and are getting ready for increased CRAMS business from the global majors.
Attracted by enticing business model of the domestic pharma companies, some global players
have acquired Indian pharma companies including Ranbaxy Laboratories, Matrix Laboratories
etc. Simultaneously, we also witnessed global majors like Pfizer entering deal with domestic
players like Aurobindo Pharma and Claris Life sciences (unlisted) for marketing their generics in
the advanced markets.
Likewise, we are also witnessing increase in buy back / open offer for share holders of associates
/ subsidiaries of the MNC pharma companies. So, the pharma sector is in thick of action. With
96
availability of skilled labor at low cost, India has become favorable destination for most of
Multinational companies to manufacture their products and to develop new molecules.
Industry expectations:
Indian Drugs Manufacturers' Association
Excise Duty
The rate of Central Excise Duty on Pharmaceuticals Formulations of 4% should be
continued.
The Bulk Drugs & Formulations thereof falling under categories of Anti-AIDS, Anti-
Cancer, Anti-TB, immune suppressants and other life-saving drugs should be totally
exempted from the excise duty.
Since most of anti-TB drugs are exempted from the Excise duty, Rifampicin should be
included in the list of exempted drugs.
Central Excise duty on Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) covered under Chapter 29
of CE Tariff should be on par with duty on Formulations covered under Chapter 30 of
CE Tariff.
Central Excise duty exemption should be granted for all cases for life saving combo pack
formulations.
All excisable goods used for R & D purposes should be exempted from central excise
duty.
Physician's samples should be exempted from Central Excise duty.
Custom duty
Custom duty & related duties for import of all capital goods, raw materials, consumables &
reference standards for R & D purposes should be fully exempted.
Import of Reference standards should be totally exempted from customs Duty, CVD etc.
Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India
Corporate Tax: Reduce from 33.99% to 30%.
97
Tax deducted at Source (TDS) should only be there where there is loan-license and not in
respect to goods purchased under contract manufacturing arrangements. Currently, this
leads to TDS being computed on the purchase of goods.
Reduce Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) to 10% from 16.95% currently.
Section 32 should be amended to specifically provide for depreciation on goodwill.
FBT on ESOPs should be withdrawn effective from assessment year 2008-09.
FBT on Superannuation, medical reimbursement and group insurance premium should be
removed going forward. Since the provisions for FBT have been introduced with effect
from assessment year 2006-07, the exemption limit of Rs 1 lakh, as introduced by the
amendment vide the Finance Act, 2006 should be made applicable w.e.f A.Y. 2006-07.
Rule 115 may be modified to include the specified date to be considered for conversation
of amounts from foreign currency to INR on items on which FBT is levied.
Seeks introduction of Threshold limit for filing of Accountant's Report under section
92E. Suggests that taxpayers having value of international transaction of less than certain
threshold limit (e.g. Rs 1 Crore) can be exempted from determination of Most
Appropriate Method ('MAM') and ALP and thus from filing of Accountants report in
Form 3CEB.
Rationalization of Penalty Provisions- To avoid undue hardship to the tax players, the
Bombay chamber suggests that the following amendments be made to section 271 AA
and Section 271G of the IT ACT: (i)In the event penalty has been levied under section
271 AA, no further penalty should be levied under section 271G. (ii) A cap on penalties
may be prescribed, which could be used/ invoked at the discretion of the AO instead of
fixed penalty of 2%. (iii) The provisions of Section 273B should be given regard to in
case of technical failures and the powers should be utilized more liberally by the
authorities. (iv)There should be an upper ceiling (taking into account all penalty
provisions on the amount of penalty, i.e. Rs 1 crore).
Purchase of Raw Materials: Appropriate guidelines for the convergence of transfer
pricing and customs need to be put in place to find a common ground under transfer
pricing and customs as contrary positions are being taken by the respective authorities in
arriving at the arm's length price. Further, it is suggested that appropriate adjustments be
98
allowed for the material differences in quality, volume, terms of sale, geographical
differences etc. between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions.
Under Section 24 (b) deduction towards interest on borrowed capital for acquiring a self
occupied house property should be increased to Rs 250000 from Rs 150000.
The maximum exemption available in respect of gratuity paid under section 10 (10) is Rs
350000 and requested to increase it to Rs 500000.
SEZs- Provide deduction of 100% of profits from export activities instead of deduction
available for profits of companies in proportion of export turnover to total turnover.
Excise duty of 4% on Drugs and Pharmaceuticals should be maintained in the Union
Budget 2010-11.
R & D: Custom duty and services tax should be exemption on the capital investment on R
& D centers. The benefited should be restricted to Rs 50 lakhs per year for a unit.
Cenvat credit on capital goods should be allowed 100% in the year of purchase.
Rule 9[1][f] of the Cenvat credit rules should be amended to allow Receipts issued by the
insurance companies / Port Authorities indicating amount debited towards service tax for
the services rendered by them.
Custom Duty on all life saving medicines like Antibiotics, Anticancer, and Anti-HIV etc
should be exempted.
Requested either totally exempt importers from payment of 4% additional duty or reduce
the administrative burden associated with processing of such refund claims.
Analysts' expectations
We expect excise duty and custom duty on bulk drugs and formulations of Anti-AIDS, Anti-
Cancer, Anti-TB and other life saving medicine to be exempted. Currently excise duty on
formulation is at 4% and bulk drugs at 8%, which is not likely to be tinkered, except for life
saving drugs.
Exemption in custom duty & Excise duty for life saving drugs would benefits MNC subsidiaries
like GlaxoSmithKline Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Aventis Pharma etc and domestic companies Dr
Reddy's Laboratories, Aurobindo, Cadila Healthcare, Ranbaxy and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
99
In particular, if excise duty on Rifampicin, a bulk drug for producing anti TB drug, is reduced /
removed, it will benefit Lupin, which is a leading producer of this bulk drug.
The Indian pharmaceuticals industry has received major relief in the stimulus packages
announced between December 2008 and February 2009. As a result of these stimulus packages,
excise duty on formulation was cut from 8% to 4% and on bulk drugs from 14% to 8%. We don't
expect any big changes in on excise duty and custom duty rates, except in life saving drugs.
By and large such changes will be more beneficial to MNC associates and to some extent to
some of the frontline domestic players.
List of Commonly Used Emergency Medicines/Life Saving Drugs:
Adenosine Injection
Adrenaline Bitartrate Injection
Aminophylline Injection
Amiodarone Injection
Antisnake venon inj polyvalent Injection
Antitetnus Human Immunoglobulin Injection
Atropine sulphate 0.6mg/ml Injection
Calcium chloride Injection
Chloroquine phosphate 64.5 mg/ml (5ml amp) Injection
Dextran-70 Injection
Diazepam 5mg/ml Injection
Dicyclomine hydrochloride 10mg/ml Injection
Diphenhydramine Injection
Diltizem Injection
Diptheria Antitoxin Injection
Dobutamine 50mg/ml (5 ml amp) Injection
Dopamine hydrochloride 40mg/ml (5ml amp) Injection
Epinephrine hydrochloride 1mg/ml Injection
Flumazenil Injection
Fresh Frozen Plasma Injection
Frusemide 10mg/ml Injection
Glucose with sodium chloride Injection
Glyceryl trinitrate 5mg/ml Injection
100
D50% Injection
Haloperidol Injection
Heparin sodium 5000IU/ml Injection
Hydrocortisone sodium succinate 100mg/ml Injection
Insulin soluble (bovine + porcine or porcine) 40IU/ml Injection
Lignocaine IV 2% Injection
Lidocaine 2% Injection
Magnesium sulphate Injection
Mannitol 10%, 20% Injection
Metoclopramide 5mg/ml
Metoprolol 1mg/ml Injection
Morphine sulphate Injection
N/2 saline Injection
N/5 saline Injection
Naloxone 0.4mg/ml Injection
Neostigmine 0.5, 2.5mg/ml Injection
Oxygen Inhalation
Oxytocin Injection
Pancuronium 2mg/ml Injection
Phenobarbitone 200mg/ml Injection
Phenytoin 50mg/ml Injection
Potassium Chloride Injection
Pralidoxime chloride (2-PAM) 25mg/ml Injection
Protamine sulphate Injection
Rabies vaccine Injection
Ringer lactate Injection
Salbutamol sulphate Inhalation
Sodium bicarbonate Injection
Succinyl choline 50mg/ml Injection
Streptokinase Injection
Tetanus Toxoid Injection
Vitamin K 10mg/ml Injection
A) Drugs used in Anaplylactic shock :-
101
(1) Inj. Epinephrine Hydrochloride (Adrenaline)
(2) Inj. Sodabicarb,
(3) Inj. Dexamethazone Sodium phosphate.
(B) Drugs used in Myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock:-
(4) Inj. Isoprenaline.
(5) Inj. Amino Caproic Acid.
(6) Inj. Streptokinase.
(7) Inj. Morphine sulphate.
(8) Inj. Meperidine Hydrocloride (Pethidine)
(9) Inj. Calcium Chloride
(10) Inj. Dopamine Hydrochloride
(11) Inj. Heparin
(12) Inj. Nitroglycerine
(13) Inj. Propranolol.
(14) Inj. Digoxin.
(15) Inj. Protamine Sulphate.
(16) Inj. Lignocaine Hydrochloride 2 percent
(17) Cap. Nifedipine.
(C) Drugs used in peripheral circulatory collapse:
(18) Inj. Dopamine Hydrochloride.
102
(19) Inj. Glucose 25 percent.
(20) Oxygen gas I.P/B.P.
(21) I.V. Ringer Lactate
(22) I.V. Normal Saline
(D) Drugs used in status eplipticus:
(23) Inj. Phenytoin Sodium
(24) Inj. Diazepam.
(25) Inj. Phenobarbitone.
(E) Drugs used in acute respiratory failure:-
(26) Inj. Nikenamide.
(27) Oxygen gas I.P./B.P
103
CHAPTER-4- PRICING POLICIES OF MEDICINES
Pricing strategy
1. Reference Pricing:
With off-patent drugs priced competitively, significant variation in cost (and therefore cost-
effectiveness) can arise within therapeutic submarkets. Newer, patented drugs may be priced at
levels that make them comparatively unattractive, given the value inherent in the low-cost
alternatives within class. Under such circumstances, reference pricing is used to engender price
competition between patented and non-patented alternatives while allowing for choice within
therapeutic submarkets. Reference pricing sets the public subsidy for drugs within a therapeutic
subgroup at a level determined by low-cost alternatives within that subgroup. Patients are fully
covered for products priced competitively with the low-cost alternatives, but are required to pay
the excess cost if they wish to use drugs priced above the reference-based subsidy.
There are three market outcomes that can occur under such reference pricing policies:
(1) firms choose to price at a level that is competitive with the reference price,
(2) patients choose to switch to those products that are priced at or below the reference price or
(3) patients choose to pay the difference for products that remain above the reference price.
In established therapeutic markets where there are multiple off-patent (and therefore tendered)
products, the threat of patients switching to fully covered products is sufficient to force new,
patented products to price competitively. Where patients may be required to switch away from
high-cost options in a therapeutic subgroup, there may be controversy surrounding the similarity
of drugs. PHARMAC has responded to this situation by developing an extensive system of
exemptions for patients needing drugs other than those covered by the reference pricing policy
( PHARMAC 2006).
2. Suo-motu pricing
The NPPA fixes/revises prices of both bulk drugs and formulations on suo-motu basis, where it
is felt that manufacturers are not filing their applications as per the provisions of the DPCO,
1995 after the decrease in bulk drug prices and statutory duties, etc. Hence, with a view to
passing on the benefits of such decreases to the consumers, suo-motu price is fixed. For example,
104
as per para 8(2) of DPCO, 1995, the manufacturers are to apply for price revision of formulations
within a period of thirty days of price fixation/revision of bulk drug(s). If they fail to comply
with this during the prescribed time, suo- motu action is taken as per para 9(2) of DPCO, 1995
for ceiling prices, and as per para 8(2) and para 11 of DPCO, 1995 for non-ceiling packs.
3. Pro-rata Pricing
NPPA has issued notification on pro -rata pricing on 27.01.98. According to this notification, the
manufacturers of all the scheduled formulation pack sizes different from the notified pack sizes
under sub- paragraphs (1) and (2) of the paragraph 9 of the DPCO, 1995, shall have to work out
the price for such pack sizes, in respect of tablets and capsules of the same strength or
composition packed in different strips or blisters, on pro-rata basis of the latest ceiling price fixed
for such formulations under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of para 9 of the DPCO, 1995. This was
done to ensure that :-
i. manufacturers are not forced to approach frequently for price approvals for different pack
sizes and
ii. the manufacturers do not change the pack sizes in a bid to remain out of price control.
Every formulation of a bulk drug included under schedule 1 of DPCO, irrespective of pack size,
strength, dosage form must be marketed only at price fixed by Government, with adjustment for
pro-rata price wherever required. However, the manufacturers in the Small Scale Industry (SSI)
category may avail exemption from seeking price fixation from NPPA in respect of Scheduled
Formulations not covered under ceiling prices provided they have submitted a declaration to
NPPA as per S.O.No.134(E) dated 2nd March, 1995 and obtained approval for the same from
NPPA.
Pricing of drugs in India
S.O.18 (E) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the Central Government hereby makes the following Order, namely:
1. Short title and commencement -
This Order may be called the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995
105
It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette
2. Definitions -In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires:
a. "bulk drug" means any pharmaceutical, chemical, biological or plant product including its
salts, esters, stereo-isomers and derivatives, conforming to pharmacopoeial or other standards
specified in the Second Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), and which
is used as such or as an ingredient in any formulation
b. "capital employed" means net fixed assets plus working capital of a manufacturer in
relation to manufacture of bulk drug
c. "ceiling price" means a price fixed by the Government for Scheduled formulations in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph
d. "dealer" means a person carrying on the business of purchase or sale of drugs, whether as a
wholesaler or retailer and whether or not in conjunction with any other business, and includes his
agent
e. "distributor" means a distributor of drugs or his agent or a stockiest appointed by a
manufacturer or an importer for stocking his drugs for sale to a dealer
f. "drug" includes:
(i) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances
intended to be used for, or in the diagnosis treatment, mitigation, or prevention of any disease or
disorder in human beings or animals, including preparations applied on human body for the
purpose of repelling insects like mosquitoes
(ii) such substances, intended to affect the structure or any function of the human or animal body
or intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or insects which cause disease in human
beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Government by notification in
the Official Gazette
(iii) bulk drugs and formulations
g. "Form" means a form specified in the Second Schedule
h. "formulation" means a medicine processed out of, or containing one or more bulk drug or
drugs with or without the use of any pharmaceutical aids, for internal or external use for or in the
diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals, but shall
not include:
106
(i) any medicine included in any bonafide Ayurvedic (including Sidha) or Unani (Tibb) systems
of medicines
(ii) any medicine included in the Homeopathic system of medicine
(iii) any substance to which the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) do
not apply
i. "free reserve" means a reserve created by appropriation of profits, but does not include reserves
provided for contingent liability, disputed claims, goodwill, revaluation and other similar
reserves
j. "Government" means the Central Government
k. "import" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means bringing into India
from a place outside India, and "importer", in relation to any goods at any time between their
importation and consumption, includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the
importer
"local taxes" means any tax or levy (except excise duty included in retail price) paid and/or
payable to the Central Government or State Government or any Local authority under any law by
the manufacturer or his agent or dealer;"*(1)
l. "manufacture" in relation to any drug, includes any process or part of a process for making,
altering, finishing, packing, labeling, breaking or otherwise treating or adapting any drug with a
view its sale and distribution, but does not include the compounding or dispensing of any drug
or the packing of any drug in the ordinary course of retail business, and "to manufacture" shall be
construed accordingly
m. "manufacturer" means any person who manufactures a drug
n. "net-worth" means the paid-up share capital of a company plus free reserve, if any, and
surpluses excluding outside investments which are not readily available for operational activity
o. "non-Scheduled bulk drug" means a bulk drug not specified in the First Schedule
p. "non-Scheduled formulation" means a formulation not containing any bulk drug specified in
the First Schedule
q. "pre-tax return" means profits before payment of income-tax and surtax and includes such
other expenses as do not form part of the cost of formulation
r. "price list" means a price list referred to in paragraphs 14 and 15 and includes a supplementary
price list
107
s. "retail price" means the retail price of a drug arrived at or fixed in accordance with the
provisions of this Order and includes a ceiling price
t. "retailer" means a dealer carrying on the retail business of sale of drugs to customer
u. "Scheduled bulk drugs" means a bulk drug specified in the First Schedule
v. "Scheduled formulation" means a formulation containing any bulk drug specified in the First
Schedule either individually or in combination with other drugs, including one or more than one
drug or drugs not specified in the First Schedule except single ingredient formulation based on
bulk drugs specified in the First Schedule and sold under the generic name
w. "sale turn-over" means the product of units of formulations sold by a manufacturer or an
importer, as the case may be, in an accounting year multiplied by retail price inclusive of sales
tax, if any, paid on direct sales by the manufacturer or importer but does not include excise duty
and local taxes, if any
x. "Schedule" means a Schedule annexed to this Order
y. "Wholesaler" means a dealer or his agent or a stockiest appointed by a manufacturer or an
importer for the sale of his drugs to a retailer, hospital, dispensary, medical, educational or
research institution purchasing bulk quantities of drugs
Power to fix the maximum sale prices of bulk drugs specified in the First schedule -
[1] The Government may, with a view to regulate the equitable distribution and increasing
supplies of a bulk drug specified in the First Schedule and making it available at a fair price,
from different manufacturers, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, fix from time to time, by
notification in the Official Gazette, a maximum sale price at which such bulk drug shall be sold
Provided that for the purpose of enquiry, in addition to the information required to be furnished
by the manufacturers under this Order, the manufacturers shall provide any such additional
information as may be required by the Government, and shall allow for inspection of their
manufacturing premises for verification through on the spot study of manufacturing processes
and facilities and records thereof, by the Government.
(2) While fixing the maximum sale price of a bulk drug under sub-paragraph (1), the
Government shall take into consideration a post-tax return of fourteen per cent on net worth or a
return of twenty two per cent on capital employed or in respect of a new plant an internal rate of
return of twelve per cent based on long term marginal costing depending upon the option for any
of the specified rates of return that may be exercised by the manufacturer of a bulk drug
108
Provided that where the production is from basic stage, the Government shall taken into
consideration a post-tax return of eighteen per cent on net worth or a return of twenty six per cent
on capital employed
Provided further that the option with regard to the rate of return once exercised by a
manufacturer shall be final and no change of rates shall be made without the prior approval of
the Government
[3] No person shall sell a bulk drug at a price exceeding the maximum sale price fixed under sub-
paragraph (1) plus local taxes, if any
Provided that until the price of a bulk drug is fixed by the Government under sub-paragraph (1),
the price of such bulk drug shall be the price which prevailed immediately before the
commencement of this Order and the manufacturer of such bulk drug shall not sell the bulk drug
at a price exceeding the price prevailing immediately before the commencement of this Order
[4] Where, after the commencement of this Order, any manufacturer commences production of
any bulk drug specified in the First Schedule, he shall within fifteen days of the commencement
of production of such bulk drug, furnish the details to the Government in Form I, and any such
additional information as may be required by the Government and the Government may after
receipt of the information and after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, may fix the
maximum sale price of bulk drug by notification in the Official Gazette
[5] Any manufacturer, who desires revision of the maximum sale price of a bulk drug fixed
under sub-paragraph (1) or (4) or as permissible under sub-paragraph (3), as the case may be,
shall make an application to the Government in Form I and the Government shall after making
such enquiry, as it deems fit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the
complete information, fix a revised price for such bulk drug or reject the application for revision
for reasons to be recorded in writing
Information to be furnished by the manufacturer in relation to the Scheduled bulk drugs:-
Every manufacturer, producing a Scheduled bulk drug shall furnish to the Government:
(a) a list of all Scheduled bulk drugs produced by him within thirty days of the commencement
of this Order and indicate the details of the cost of each of such bulk drug in Form I
(b) the details of the cost of each Scheduled bulk drug produced by him, including such bulk
drug which has been produced after the commencement of this Order, in Form I by the 30th
September, every year
109
Information to be furnished by the manufacturer in relation to the non-Scheduled bulk
drugs: - Every manufacturer, producing a non-Scheduled bulk drug shall furnish to the
Government:
(a) a list of all such bulk drugs produced by him within thirty days of the commencement of this
Order and indicate the details of the cost of each of such bulk drugs in From II
(b) the details of the cost of each non-scheduled bulk drug produced by him, including such bulk
drug which has been produced after the commencement of this Order, in Form II
Provided that, for the purpose of this paragraph, the Government, may after making such inquiry
as it may deem necessary in public interest, fix or revise the price of any non-Scheduled bulk
drug and the manufacturer or importer of such bulk drug shall "give effect to the price so fixed or
revised within fifteen days of receipt of the order and not sell such non-scheduled bulk drug at
a price exceeding the price so fixed or revised thereafter"
Power to direct manufacturers of bulk drugs to sell bulk drugs to other manufacturers of
formulations: -
[1] With a view to achieving adequate production and regulating the equitable distribution, the
Government may, from time to time, by general or special order, direct any manufacturer of any
bulk drug to sell such bulk drug to such other manufacturers of formulations as may be specified
in such order
Provided that while making any such order, the Government shall have regard to all or any of the
following factors, namely:
(i) the requirement for captive consumption of such manufacturer, and
(ii) the requirement of other manufacturers.
[2] For the purpose of making any order under sub-paragraph (1), the Government may call for
such information from manufacturer, importer or distributor, of bulk drugs, as it may consider
necessary and such manufacturer, importer or distributor shall be bound to furnish such
information within such time as may be specified by the Government
Calculation of retail price of formulation: - The retail price of a formulation shall be
calculated by the Government in accordance with the following formula, namely:
R. P. = (M.C.+C.C.+P.M.+P.C) x (1+MAPE/100) + ED. where
"R.P." means retail price
110
"M.C." means material cost and includes the cost of drugs and other
pharmaceutical aids used including overages, if any, plus process loss thereon specified as a
norm from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf
"C.C." means conversion cost worked out in accordance with established procedures of costing
and shall be fixed as a norm every year by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf
"P.M." means cost of the packing material used in the packing of concerned formulation,
including process loss, and shall be fixed as a norm every year by notification in the Official
Gazette in this behalf
"P.C." means packing charges worked out in accordance with established procedures of costing
and shall be fixed as a norm every year by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf
"MAPE" (Maximum Allowable Post-manufacturing Expenses) means all costs incurred by a
manufacturer from the stage of ex-factory cost to retailing and includes trade margin and margin
for the manufacturer and it shall not exceed One hundred per cent for indigenously manufactured
Scheduled formulations
"E.D." means excise duty;
Provided that in the case of an imported formulation, the landed cost shall form the basis for
fixing it's price alongwith such margin to cover selling and distribution expenses including
interest and importer's profit which shall not exceed fifty per cent of the landed cost
Explanation - For the purpose of this proviso, "landed cost" means the cost of import of
formulation inclusive of customs duty and clearing charges.
Power to fix retail price of Scheduled Formulations: -
[1] The Government may, from time to time, by order, fix the retail price of a Scheduled
formulation in accordance with the formula laid down in paragraph 7.
[2] Where the Government fixes or revises the price of any bulk drug under the provisions of this
Order and a manufacturer utilizes such bulk drug in his Scheduled formulations he shall, within
thirty days of such fixation or revision, make an application to the Government, in Form-III for
price revision of all such formulations and the Government may, if it considers necessary, fix or
revise the price of such formulation.
[3] The retail price of a formulation once fixed by the Government under sub-paragraphs (1) and
(2) shall not be increased by any manufacturer except with the prior approval of the Government.
111
[4] Any manufacturer, who desires revision of the retail price of a formulation fixed under sub-
paragraph (1), shall make an application to the Government in Form III or Form IV, as the case
may be, and the Government shall after making such enquiry, as it deems fit within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of the complete information, fix a revised price for such
formulation or reject the application for revision for reasons to be recorded in writing.
[5] Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-paragraphs, the retail price of a
Scheduled formulation, of a manufacturer shall, until the retail price thereof is fixed under the
provisions of this Order, be the price which prevailed immediately before the commencement of
this Order, and the manufacture of such formulation shall not sell the formulation at a price
exceeding the price prevailing immediately before the commencement of this Order.
[6] No manufacturer or importer shall market a new pack, if not covered under sub-paragraph 3
of Para 9, or a new formulation or a new dosage form of his existing Scheduled formulation
without obtaining the prior approval of its price from the Government.
[7] No person shall sell or dispose of any imported Scheduled formulation without obtaining the
prior approval of its price from the Government.
Power to fix ceiling price of Scheduled formulations:-
[1] Notwithstanding anything contained in this Order, the Government may, from time to time,
by notification in the Official Gazette fix the ceiling price of a Scheduled formulation in
accordance with the formula laid down in paragraph 7, keeping in view the cost or efficiency, or
both, of major manufacturers of such formulations and such price shall operate as the ceiling sale
price for all such packs including those sold under generic name and for every manufacturer of
such formulations.
[2] The Government may, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf by
a manufacture in Form III or Form IV, as the case may be, after calling for such information as it
may consider necessary, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix a revised ceiling price for a
Scheduled formulation.
[3] With a view to enabling the manufacturers of similar formulations to sell those formulations
in pack size different to the pack size for which ceiling price has been notified under the sub-
paragraphs (1) and (2), manufacturers shall work out the price for their respective formulation
packs in accordance with such norms, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time,
112
and he, shall intimate the price of formulation pack, so worked out, to the Government and such
formulation packs shall be released for sale only after the expiry of sixty days after such
intimation.
Provided that the Government may, if it considers necessary, by order revise the price so
intimated by the manufacturer and upon, such revision, the manufacturer shall not sell such
formulation at a price exceeding the price so revised.
Explanation- For the purpose of this paragraph the "Scheduled formulation" includes single
ingredient formulation based on bulk drugs specified in the First Schedule and sold under the
generic name .
Power to revise price of bulk drugs and formulation:- Notwithstanding anything contained
in this order :-
(a) The Government may, after obtaining such information as may be considered necessary from
a manufacture or importer, fix or revise the retail price of one or more formulations marketed by
such manufacturer or importer, including a non-Scheduled formulation, in such manner as the
pre-tax return on the sales turnover of such manufacturer or importer does not exceed the
maximum pre-tax return specified in the Third Schedule;
(b) The Government may, if it considers necessary so to do in public interest, after calling for
such information by order fix or revise the retail price of any formulation including a non-
Scheduled formulation;
(c) The Government may, if it considers necessary so to do in public interest, by order include
any bulk drug in the First Schedule and fix or revise the prices of such a bulk drug and
formulations containing such a bulk drug in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3, 7, 8
and 9, as the case may be.
Fixation of price under certain circumstances:-
Where any manufacturer, importer of a bulk drug or formulation fails to submit the application
for price fixation or revision, as the case may be, or to furnish information as required under this
Order, within the time specified therein, the Government may, on the basis of such information
as may be available with it, by order fix a price in respect of such bulk drug or formulation as the
case may be.
Power to recover dues accrued under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 and to
deposit the same into the Drug Prices Equalization Account:-
113
[1] Notwithstanding anything contained in this Order, the Government may by notice, require the
manufacturer, importer or distributor, as the case may be, to deposit the amount which has
accrued under the provisions of the drugs (Price Control) Order, 1979 on or before the
commencement of this Order, into the Drugs Prices Equalization Account and the manufacturer,
importer or distributor, as the case may be, shall deposit the said amount into the said Account
within such time as the Government may specify in the said notice.
[2] The existing amount, if any, in the Drugs Prices Equalization Account on or before the date
of commencement of this Order, and the amount deposited under sub-paragraph (1) shall be
utilized for,-
[a] Paying to the manufacturer, importer or distributor, as the case may be, the short-fall between
his retention price and the common selling price or, as the case may be, the pooled price for the
purpose of increasing the production, or securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair
prices, of drugs;
[b] Meeting the expenses incurred by the Government in discharging the functions under this
paragraph; and
[c] Promoting higher education and research in Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology and for
the purposes incidental thereto.
Power to recover overcharged amount:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, the Government shall by notice, require the
manufacturers, importers or distributors, as the case may be, to deposit the amount accrued due
to charging of prices higher than those fixed or notified by the Government under the provisions
of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 and under the provisions of this Order.
Carrying into effect the price fixed or revised by the Government, its display and proof
thereof:-
[1] Every manufacturer or importer shall carry into effect the price of a bulk drug or formulation,
as the case may be, as fixed by the Government from time to time, within fifteen days from the
date of notification in the Official Gazette or receipt of the order of the Government in this
behalf by such manufacturer or importer.
[2] Every manufacturer, importer or distributor of a formulation intended for sale shall display in
indelible print mark, on the label of container of the formulation and the minimum pack thereof
offered for retail sale, the retail price of that formulation, notified in the Official Gazette or
114
ordered by the Government in this behalf, with the words "retail price not to exceed" preceding
it, and "local taxes extra" succeeding it, in the case of Scheduled formulations :
Provided that in the case of a container consisting of smaller saleable packs, the retail price of
such smaller pack shall also be displayed on the label of each smaller pack and such price shall
not be more than the prorate retail price of the main pack rounded off to the nearest paisa.
[3] Every manufacturer or importer shall issue a price list and supplementary price list, if
required, in Form V to the dealers, State Drugs Controllers and the Government indicating
reference to such price fixation or revision as covered by the order or Gazette notification issued
by the Government, from time to time.
[4] Every retailer and dealer shall display the price list and the supplementary price list, if any, as
furnished by the manufacturer or importer, on a conspicuous part of the premises where he
carries on business in a manner so as to be easily accessible to any person wishing to consult the
same.
Display of prices of non-Scheduled formulations and price list thereof:-
[1] Every manufacturer, importer or distributor of a non-Scheduled formulation intended for sale
shall display in indelible print mark, on the label of container of the formulation and the
minimum pack thereof offered for retail sale the retail price of that formulation with the words
"retail price not to exceed" preceding it and the words "local taxes extra" succeeding it. *(1)
Provided that in the case of a container consisting of smaller saleable packs, the retail price of
such smaller pack shall also be displayed on the label of each smaller pack and such price shall
not to be more than the prorate retail price of the main pack rounded off to the nearest paisa.
[2] Every manufacturer or importer shall issue a price list and supplementary price list, if
required, of the non-Scheduled formulations in Form V to the dealers, State Drugs Controllers
and the Government indicating changes, from time to time.
[3] Every retailer and dealer shall display the price list and the supplementary price list, if any, as
furnished by the manufacturer or importer, on a conspicuous part of the premises where he
carries on business in a manner so as to be easily accessible to any person wishing to consult the
same.
115
Control of sale prices of bulk drugs and formulations:-
No person shall sell any bulk drug or formulation to any consumer at a price exceeding the price
specified in the current price list or price indicated on the label of the container or pack thereof,
whichever is less, plus all local taxes, if any, payable.*(1)
Sale of split quantities of formulations:-
No dealer shall sell loose quantity of any formulation at a price which exceeds the pro-rata price
of the formulation plus 5 per cent thereof.
Manufacturer, distributor or dealer not to refuse sale of drug:-
Subject to the provisions of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) and the Rules
framed there under:-
[a] No manufacturer or distributor shall withhold from sale or refuse to sell to a dealer any drug
without good and sufficient reasons;
[b] No dealer shall withhold from sale or refuse to sell any drug available with him to a customer
intending to purchase such drug.
Price of formulations sold to the dealer:-
[1] A manufacturer, distributor or wholesaler shall sell a formulation to a retailer, unless
otherwise permitted under the provisions of this Order or any order made there under, at a price
equal to the retail price, as specified by an order or notified by the Government (excluding excise
duty, if any) minus sixteen per cent thereof in the case of Scheduled drugs.
[2] Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraph (1), the Government may be a general
or special order fix, in public interest, the price of formulation sold to the wholesaler or retailer
in respect of any formulation the price of which has been fixed or revised under this Order.
Maintenance of records and production thereof for inspection:-
[1] Every manufacturer and importer shall maintain in such form as may be specified by the
government, records relating to the sales turnover of individual bulk drugs manufactured or
imported by him, as the case may be, and the sales turnover of formulations pack-wise and also
such other records as may be directed from time to time by the Government and the Government
shall have the power to call for such records or to inspect such records at the premises of the
manufacturer or importer.
116
[2] Every manufacturer or importer shall, within six month of the close of the accounting Year,
submit to the Government information in respect of turnover and allocation of sales and expenses
for that year in Form-VI.
[3] Every dealer, manufacturer or importer shall maintain the cash memo or credit memo, books
of account and records of purchase and sale of drugs and shall make available such records for
inspection by the Government or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Government.
Power of entry, search and seizure:-
[1] Any Gazetted Officer of the Central Government or of a State Government authorized by a
general or special order by the Central Government or, as the case may be, by the State
Government in this behalf may, with a view to securing compliance with this Order or to satisfy
himself that the provisions of this Order have been compiled with -
[a] Enter and search any place;
[b] Seize any drug, along with the containers, packages or covering in which the drug is found, in
respect of which he suspects that any provision of this Order has been, is being, or is about to be
contravened, and thereafter take all measures necessary for securing production of the drug,
containers, packages or covering, so seized, in a court of law and for their safe custody pending
such production :
[c] Seize any document, such as, cash memo or credit memo books, books of account and
records of purchase and sale of the drugs in respect of which he suspects that any provision of
this Order has been, is being, or is about to be contravened.
[2] The provision of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19/3 (2 of 1974), relating to
search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this Order .
Power to review:-
Any person aggrieved by any notification issued or order made under paragraphs 3, 5, 8,9 or 10
may apply to the Government for a review of the notification or order within fifteen days of the
date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or the receipt of the order by him, as
the case may be, and the Government may make such order on the application as it may deem
proper :
Provided that pending a decision by the Government on the application submitted under the
above paragraph, no manufacturer, importer or distributor, as the case may be, shall sell a bulk
117
drug or formulation, as the case may be, at a price exceeding the price fixed by the Government
of which a review has been applied for.
Power to issue guidelines and directions:-
[1] The Government, may for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this Order,
authorize any Officer, by a general or special order, to inspect the premises of any manufacturer,
importer, distributor or dealer and such manufacturer, importer, distributor or dealer shall allow
such authorized officer and make available all relevant information required for the purpose.
[2] The Government may, from time to time, issue such guidelines and directions, consistent
with the provisions of this order to any manufacturer or importer as may be necessary to carry
out the provisions of this Order and such manufacturer or importer shall comply with such
guidelines and directions.
Penalties:-
Any contravention of any of the provisions of this Order shall be punished in a accordance with
the provision of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( 10 of 1955).
Power to exempt:-
[1] Government may, having regard to the factors mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) and subject to
such conditions as it may specify, by an order in the Official Gazette, exempt any manufacturer
from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Order.
[2] While granting exemption under sub-paragraph (1), the Government shall have regard to all
or any of the following factors: -
Number of workers employed
Amount of capital invested
Range/group and type of products manufactured
Sales turnover
Production of bulk drugs from basic stage by a process developed through indigenous research
and development, and which is significantly different from known processes and results in cost
reduction
Production of a new drug which has not been produced elsewhere, if developed through
indigenous research and development
Delegation of powers:-
118
The Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, direct that all or any of the powers
conferred upon it by this order, other than those contained in paragraphs 22, 23, and 25 shall,
subject to such restrictions, exceptions and conditions, as may be specified in the direction, be
exercisable also by such Officer or authority as may be specified in the notification.
Repeal and saving:-
[1] The Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 is hereby repealed.
[2] Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken, including any notification
order made, direction given, notice issue or exemption granted under the Drugs ( Prices Control)
Order 1987, shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Order, be deemed
to have been done, taken made, given, issued or granted, as the case may be, under the
corresponding provisions of this Order.
Specified maximum pre-tax return on sales turnover of manufacturers or importers of
formulations:-
CATEGORY A:
Large units with turnover exceeding Rs.6 Crores per annum:
having no basic drug manufacturing activity nor any research activity - eight per cent
having basic drug manufacturing activity at five per cent or more of the turnover but no research
activity - nine per cent
having basic drug manufacturing activity at five per cent or more of the turnover and engaged in
approved research and development work related to new drugs - ten per cent
CATEGORY B:
Medium sized units with turnover between Rs.1 Crore to Rs. 6 Crores per annum:
having no basic drug manufacturing activity nor any research activity - nine per cent
having basic drug manufacturing activity at five per cent or more of the turnover but no research
activity - eleven per cent
having basic drug manufacturing activity at five per cent or more of the turnover and engaged in
approved research and development work related to new drugs - thirteen per cent
CATEGORY C:
Other units with turnover of less than Rs. 1 crore per anum:
having only formulation activity - twelve per cent
having basic drug manufacturing activity at five per cent or more of the turnover thirteen per cent
119
SINGLE LIST OF PRICE CONTROLLED DRUGS & "MAPE"
The system of price control may be operated through a Single list of price controlled drugs and
formulations based thereon with a MAPE of 100 per cent.
SPAN OF CONTROL
(i) The criterion of including drugs under price control will be the minimum annual turnover of
Rs.400 lakhs.
(ii) Drugs of popular use, in which there is a monopoly situation will be kept under price
control. For this purpose if for any bulk drug, having an annual turnover of Rs. 100 lakhs or
more there is a single formulator having 90% or more market share in the Retail Trade (as per
ORG) a monopoly situation would be considered as existing.
(iii) Drugs in which there is sufficient market competition viz. at least 5 bulk drug producers and
at least 10 formulators and none having more than the 40% market share in the Retail Trade (as
per ORG) may be kept outside the price control. However, a strict watch would be kept on the
movement of prices as it is expected that their prices would be kept in check by the forces of
market competition. The Government may determine the ceiling levels beyond which increase in
prices would not be permissible.
(iv) Government will keep a close watch on the price of medicines which are taken out of price
control. In case, the prices of these medicines raise unreasonably, the Government would take
appropriate measures, including reclamping of price control.
(v) For applying the above criteria, to start with, the basis would be the data up to 31st March,
1990 collected for the exercise of the Review of the Drug Policy. The updating of the data will
be done by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority as detailed in Para 22.7.4 (i).
(vi) Genetically engineered drugs produced by recombinant DNA technology and specific
cell/tissue targeted drug formulations will not be under price control for 5 years from the date of
manufacture in India.
120
Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies in a Global Market
Pharmaceutical policies affect prices and use of medicines, industry profits and incentives
for innovation:
Pharmaceutical expenditure, the volume and mix of medicines consumed, and the prices paid,
are all influenced by the policies that affect the pharmaceutical industry. By affecting their
profits, these policies also help to steer pharmaceutical R&D investment decisions.
For instance, insurance subsidies the amount individuals spend on pharmaceuticals. This reduces
financial barriers to access and increases the volume of medicines used. At the same time, patent
protections provide sellers of innovative pharmaceuticals with a monopoly on the market and
opportunities to maintain relatively high prices in cases where there are no therapeutic
alternatives.
All OECD countries have introduced some degree of price regulation for pharmaceuticals. While
two countries, Canada and Mexico, have chosen to cap the price of all patented drugs on the
market, whether or not they are covered by publicly financed coverage schemes, most OECD
countries regulate the prices of medicines whose use is subsidized through such schemes,
whether or not the medicines are on-patent.
The most common pricing policy is known as external benchmarking, in which a price limit is
set according to a formula based on what other countries pay. This practice has several
drawbacks. First, the pharmaceutical industry launches its products first in countries where it can
set a price freely at market entry (e.g., Germany, the U.S.) or negotiate relatively high prices
(e.g., Switzerland). Second, there is a risk of benchmarking to artificially high list prices because
payers negotiate confidential rebates, reducing the real price paid. Together with the threat to
industry profits posed by parallel and cross-border trade in pharmaceuticals, this practice
contributes to convergence of list prices and affordability problems in lower-income countries.
Another common way to set drug prices is to compare them with prices for therapeutic
alternatives that are already on the market. Usually, a price premium is awarded only for
products that are assessed as having extra therapeutic advantages. In Germany and a growing
121
number of other countries, the amount patients are reimbursed is capped by the price of products
considered similar, so if patients buy more expensive products they pay the difference out of
their own pocket.
Pharmacoeconomic assessment - evaluating the costs and benefits expected from a product - can
be used to decide whether a medicine is worth what its maker proposes to charge. About one-
third of OECD countries use this tool to decide pricing and reimbursement, but few have formal
programmes for original assessment and valuation. Pharmacoeconomic assessment can help
obtain good value for money while furnishing important market signals as to what sorts of
investment are most useful. It remains, however, a technically challenging and value-laden
exercise.
Prices and Availability
Public Sector
The procurement price at all sites was very reasonable (less than international reference
price), lowest was for Chennai.
Median availability of medicines in public sector was very poor, median availability of
surveyed medicine in West Bengal was 0%.
Local purchase prices for medicines were higher compared to price at retail pharmacies
(observed in Rajasthan Survey).
Private Sector
Not much price variation was observed in different states for all the three forms of medicines.
Not much price variation between innovator brand (IB) and most sold generic (MSG)
equivalents.
No difference in the price of MSG and lowest priced generic (LPG) equivalents at any of the
sites except Maharashtra (4 regions) where the MSG was slightly more (3.8%) than the LPG.
This indicated lower priced generics manufactured in the country are not usually stocked by
the retailers. In Rajasthan survey LPG were found to be 33% lower than MSG.
Medicines are available at Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on the strips.
122
Ciprofloxacin is a ‘schedule’ (price controlled) medicine but it showed lot of variation in
price of IB, MSG and LPG. Price of MSG was more than IB.
Price of ranitidine, another “controlled/scheduled” drug surveyed, was found to be very
consistent in all the regions surveyed, and the price of IB, MSG and LPG was the same.
LPG price of diazepam in private sector was 33 times the procurement price.
LPG price of ranitidine in private sector was 1.7 times the procurement price.
Affordability
Affordability was measured in terms of number of days worked by the lowest paid unskilled
government worker to purchase a standard treatment regimen. The range of daily wage of the
lowest paid unskilled government worker in six survey states was INR 120-144 ($3). Table A
below shows the availability of a particular medicine in public sector and the number of days a
lowest pain government worker have to work to purchase a treatment from private sector.
Medicines chosen are commonly used essential medicines that are procured by all state
government public sectors. This table shows that if a patient visit public sector and in case of non
availability of the medicine how much money it will cost to purchase the medicine in terms of
number of days’ wages of lowest government worker.
Only a small proportion of the population is employed in the government sector, and wages are
very low in the unorganized sector. Thus the affordability of medicines for the poor and
unemployed is severely challenged. According to a World Bank report, 34.7%, or 35 million
Indians live on less than U.S. $1 per day.5 As a result, affordability of medicines is often beyond
the reach of a majority of the population. However, these costs only accounts for the price of
medicine, consultation fees of the doctor and diagnostic tests may lead to a considerably higher
total cost for the patient in private sector.
Price components
Price components are a concern for all those involved in public health and access to medicines,
whether the government, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), a social insurance plan, the
prescribers or the patients. Price components come from a variety of sources, including:
government-collected tariffs; markups collected by middlemen to meet their overheads and
distribution expenses; and inefficient procedures in procurement. Price component is a very
123
important aspect to be studied in-detail and the data can be used to develop national
pharmaceutical policies, such as creating tax and tariff exemptions, controlling mark-ups and
establishing government-recommended selling prices, which aim to increase access to essential
medicines.
The price paid for a medicine includes a number of price components. As medicines move along
the supply chain, from manufacturer to the patient, additional costs are added on the way to the
manufacturer’s selling price (MSP). These price components are in variety of forms, such as
government-collected tariffs, freight costs, taxes and mark-ups collected by middlemen, and
procurement procedures. For each country these mark-ups are different in forms and amount.
Governments may not always have a complete picture of medicine price components because
different ministries are many-a-times involved in purchasing, regulation and distribution of
essential medicines. However, accurate information on the various components involved in the
supply chain is must to take correct measures to reduce the prices paid for medicines in any
sector.
Before the WHO/HAI project on Medicine Prices and Availability, there was no methodology to
systematically collect, analyze and compare information on medicine price components. A price
components survey was conducted in February & March 2007 on eight medicines in the public
and private sectors of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
The price component in NCT Delhi aimed to investigate the discrepancies discovered during the
Medicine Prices surveys and also the following objectives:
At the central government level: to examine the relationship between medicine price
components and pricing structures. Specifically of interest is the difference between
medicines whose prices are set by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority and
those medicines whose prices are not regulated.
At the Delhi state level: to examine how price components relate to pricing differences
between the public and the private sector.
To investigate what price components occur in the public sector supply chain.
To study the efficiency of public sector procurement departments.
124
Comparative analysis of pricing in different categories of medicine
Pricing of general drugs
The fact that manufacturers can offer trade schemes for an entire year indicates that the Price to
Stockist (PTS) provides the manufacturer with a large profit margin. A trade scheme of “4+1”
means that there is enough profit in the standard manufacturer margin on four packs of the
medicine to cover the manufacturer’s costs and profit for 5 packages. The largest trade margin
found is on injectable ceftriaxone, with a scheme of “2+1”. The presence of trade schemes
suggests that some medicine prices could be lowered.
Manufacturers set the price of their products and submit the proposed price to the DCGI when
the product is registered. For scheduled medicines, the NPPA pricing formula is used to confirm
the price – however trade schemes were also found on ciprofloxacin.
Detailed discussion with 2 medium-sized manufacturers and an analysis of their production costs
revealed a weak correlation between manufacturing costs and MRP of branded medicines.
One way to see this is to compare the PTR and the MRP for branded and branded-generic
medicines. Several examples from the private sector data are given in Table for each medicine,
two branded and two branded-generic examples are given.
Table-1 Comparison of branded and branded-generic prices (prices in rupees)
amoxicillin atorvastatin ciprofloxacin Omeprazole
Ex 1 Ex 2 Ex 1 Ex 2 Ex 1 Ex 2 Ex 1 Ex 2
Branded PTR 57.28 53.70 65.00 61.94 65.94 56.36 55.45 54.50
MRP 76.00 65.25 85.00 80.52 85.73 65.87 72.09 72.00
Branded-generic PTR 9.50 9.50 22.00 37.88 11.50 NA 16.00 NA
MRP 37.50 35.40 28.00 45.00 60.10 44.25 35.00 64.80
Source: OPPI 2008
The Rs 60.10 and RS 44.25 ciprofloxacins and the Rs 64.80 and Rs 35.00 omeprazoles are
branded-generics, but were found in peri-urban retail shops that did not stock branded medicines.
The difference between the PTR and the MRP of the branded-generics can be explained in terms
of trade terms and the marketing that the retailer must do to promote and sell the medicine.
125
However the PTR also suggests a large profit margin for the manufacturer of branded medicines.
High levels of competition for non-scheduled medicines does not guarantee lower prices
The NPPA does not set the price of non-scheduled medicines; in theory, market competition will
bring medicine prices to their lowest possible value. In the survey, 5 versions of amoxicillin, 12
versions of atorvastatin and 7 versions of omeprazole were found. As Table7 shows, the price of
the branded versions of amoxicillin, atorvastatin and omeprazole remains much higher than that
of the branded-generic versions of these medicines.
Pricing of life saving drugs
The government today reduced basic customs duty on influenza vaccine and nine other specified
life saving drugs used for treating breast cancer, hepatitis-B, rheumatic arthritis, etc.
The government has also reduced basic customs duty for two bulk drugs used in manufacturing
these medicines from 10 per cent to five per cent.
Bulk drugs are processed raw materials used in manufacturing the final doses of medicines.
"They (influenza vaccines, nine medicines and two bulk drugs) will also be totally exempt from
excise duty and countervailing duty," Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee said while presenting
the Budget in the Lok Sabha today.
Besides this, customs duty will also be reduced from 7.5 per cent to five per cent on two
specified life-saving devices used in treating heart ailments.
The government is actively considering bringing 355 life saving drugs under price control and
take a few additional measures to help the poor and below poverty line (BPL) families, once the
Union Cabinet approves National Pharmaceutical Policy.
"The government is committed to ensure the availability of life saving drugs at reasonable prices.
The National Pharmaceutical Pricing authority (NPPA) has taken a number of measures to this
effect," said union minister of chemicals, fertilizers and minister of Steel Ram Vilas Paswan said
on Friday in the Rajya Sabha.
He said that the Pharmaceutical Policy is under consideration of the Cabinet after it has been
vetted by a Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar.
Responding to the demand of members to enumerate the suggestions of the GoM, Paswan said,
"I cannot divulge the details of the GoM till Cabinet clears it."
126
The minister informed the House that 74 bulk drugs specified in the First Schedule of the Drugs
(Price) control Order (DPCO) 1995 and the formulations based thereon are under price control
and their prices are fixed/revised NPPA in accordance with the provisions of DPCO.
"It is under active consideration to bring 355 additional life saving drugs under price control,"
said Paswan. He also informed that the government has recently approved a Health Insurance
Scheme 'The Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana', which is expected to cover all the BPL families
in the unorganized sector in the next five years.
The total sum insured would be Rs 30,000 per family per annum to cover hospitalization
expenses, he said.
Pricing of generic drugs
The generic drugs are less expensive as compared to branded drugs as generic manufacturers do
not have the investment costs of the developer of a new drug. New drugs are generally developed
under patent protection. The patent protects the investment and the associated expense, viz.
research, development, marketing and promotion. When patents are nearing expiration,
manufacturers usually approach the Government/Drug Control Department to sell generic
versions. In the process, the consumers get genetic drugs at substantially lower costs.
Both branded and generic drugs are manufactured by conforming to International standards.
Brand name drugs are usually given patent protection for 20 years from the date of submission of
the patent. This provides protection for the innovator of such drugs to make good the initial costs
incurred by him, viz., research development and marketing expenses, to develop the new drug.
Many drug companies start manufacturing generic drugs once the patent license expires for a
branded drug.
The physician plays a vital role to determine whether his patient needs a branded drug or generic
drug. This is because a generic substitution may not be appropriate in certain circumstances
where only a branded drug would be suitable for the patient. There are only rare circumstances
where substituting a generic drug for a brand name product (or vice versa) may not be
appropriate for a particular patient. For some patients, generic substitution may be inappropriate
due to reactions to inactive ingredients or problems with the pill shape, colour or related
characteristics.
Patients should become assertive and insist upon the doctors to prescribe generic drugs if
available, so that the patient would get the product at the best possible price. Pharmacists also
127
play a vital role in educating the doctors about the availability of generic drugs. Thus the right
medication could be given to the patients at the best possible price.
Generics are as good as branded drugs and in view of third party administrators having entered in
the Indian health care scenario, the patients are sanctioned only the minimum amount when
hospitals send authorizations for approval of treatment. Thus if generic drugs are bought by the
patient, the patient may not lose money by going in for branded drugs, which are too costly.
Table-2 List of Generic Items for which Price Agreement available on Private Firms as on
29-05-2008
(excluding the de-registered items as on 28.01.09) validity 01.04.2007-31.03.2010
SlNO VMS_C
ODE
VMS_NAME SPECI
FICA
TION
PACK
ING
SHELF
_LIFE
ACC_
UNIT
Rate
Appro
ved
manf_name
1. G26002 DEXTROSE 5%
INJECTION
500ML BOTT
IP 500ML
POLY
PACK
36
MONTH
S
1 11.3 ALBERT
DAVID
LTD.
2. G26004 SODIUM
CHLORIDE 0.9%
AND DEXTROSE
5% INJECTION
500ML BOTT
IP 500ML
POLY
PACK
36
MONTH
S
1 11.3 ALBERT
DAVID
LTD.
3. G26005 SODIUM
CHLORIDE 0.9%
INJECTION
500ML BOTT
IP 500ML
POLY
PACK
36
MONTH
S
1 11.2 ALBERT
DAVID
LTD.
4. G26009 RINGER
LACTATE
(COMPOUND
SODIUM
LACTATE
IP 500ML
POLY
PACK
36
MONTH
S
1 11.75 ALBERT
DAVID
LTD.
128
INJECTION)500M
L
5. G21002 CHLORAMPHEN
ICOL 1%
OINTMENT EYE
APPLICAPS
IP BOTT
OF
100'S
24
MONTH
S
100 24 ANOD
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
PRIVATE
LTD
6. G21024 ATROPINE
SULPHATE 1%
EYE OINTMENT
5GM
IP 5G
TUBE
24
MONTH
S
10 79.44 ANOD
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
PRIVATE
LTD
7. G27012 VITAMIN A
50,000 IU
CAPSULES
USP STRIP
OF 10
24
MONTH
S
100 56.88 ANOD
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
PRIVATE
LTD
8. G03002 CHLORPHENIRA
MINE MALEATE
4 MG TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 0.56 ARBRO
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD
9. G10005 FOLIC ACID 5
MG TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
24
MONTH
S
10 0.63 ARBRO
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD
10. G12038 ATENOLOL 100
MG TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 2.11 ARBRO
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD
11. G17012 METOCLOPRAM
IDE
IP 30ML
BOTT
24
MONTH
1 4.55 ARBRO
PHARMAC
129
HYDROCHLORI
DE 5 MG / ML
SYRUP 30ML
S EUTICALS
LTD
12. G17014 PROCHLORPER
AZINE
MALEATE 5 MG
TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 0.83 ARBRO
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD
13. G17025 BISACODYL 5
MG TABLETS.
IP STRIP
OF 10
24
MONTH
S
10 1.4 ARBRO
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD
14. G18004 PREDNISOLONE
5 MG TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 1.94 ARBRO
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD
15. G18017 GLIBENCLAMID
E 5 MG
TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 0.71 ARBRO
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD
16. G25008 SALBUTAMOL
SULPHATE 4 MG
TABLET
IP STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 0.76 ARBRO
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD
17. G03004 DEXAMETHASO
NE 0.5 MG
TABLETS
IP 10X10 36
MONTH
S
100 9.46 ARVIND
REMEDIES
18. G05001 CARBAMAZEPI
NE 100 MG
TABLETS
IP 10X10 36
MONTH
S
100 33 ARVIND
REMEDIES
19. G08001 AZATHIOPRINE
50 MG TABLETS
BP 10X10 24
MONTH
100 169 ARVIND
REMEDIES
130
S
20. G12007 METOPROLOL
TARTRATE 50
MG TABLETS
IP 10 X10 24
MONTH
S
100 40 ARVIND
REMEDIES
21. G18016 GLIBENCLAMID
E 2.5 MG
TABLETS
IP TUBE 36
MONTH
S
100 15 ARVIND
REMEDIES
22. G24003 CHLORPROMAZ
INE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 100 MG
TABLETS
IP 10 X10 36
MONTH
S
100 42 ARVIND
REMEDIES
23. G27008 RIBOFLAVIN 5
MG TABLETS
NOT
MENT
IONE
D
10 X10 18
MONTH
S
100 19 ARVIND
REMEDIES
24. G11009 FACTOR VIII
CONCENTRATE
DRIED
INJECTION
NOT
MENT
IONE
D
250IU/
PER
VIAL
24
MONTH
S
1 2750 BAXTER (I)
PVT LTD.
25. G12068 STREPTOKINAS
E 15,00,000 IU
INJECTION
CPT 10 ML
VIAL
2
YEARS
1 650 BHARAT
BIOTECH
INTERNATI
ONAL LTD.
26. G19010 HEPATITIS B
VIRUS VACCINE
INJECTION 10
DOSES
CPT 10 ML
VIAL
3
YEARS
1 99 BHARAT
BIOTECH
INTERNATI
ONAL LTD.
27. G05012 SODIUM
VALPROATE 200
MG TABLETS
BP 10 X
10
STRIP
2
YEARS
100 72 BHARAT
PARENTER
ALS LTD.
131
28. G06099 AMPHOTERICIN
-B 50 MG FOR
INJECTION
BP 50 MG
VIAL
2
YEARS
1 117 BHARAT
PARENTER
ALS LTD.
29. G12049 METHYLDOPA
250 MG
TABLETS
IP 10 X
10
4
YEARS
100 135 BHARAT
PARENTER
ALS LTD.
30. G25004 HYDROCORTISO
NE SODIUM
SUCCINATE 100
MG INJECTION
IP 100
MG
VIAL
2
YEARS
1 6.66 BHARAT
PARENTER
ALS LTD.
31. G20001 ATRACURIUM
BESYLATE 10
MG / ML
INJECTION2.5M
L
USP 2.5
AMP
2
YEARS
1 51 BHARAT
SERUMS
AND
VACCINES
LTD.
32. G04002 ANTISNAKE
VENOM
INJECTION
POLYVALENT
SOLUTION/
LYOPHILYZED
POLYVALENT
SERUM SNAKE
VENOM
ANTISERUM
IP 10 ML
VIAL
2
YEARS
1 250 BIOLOGIC
AL E.
LIMITED
33. G25002 BECLOMETHAS
ONE
DIPROPIONATE
50 MG DOSE
INHALER 200MD
NOT
MENT
IONE
D
CONT
OF
200MD
36
MONTH
S
1 78.9 CIPLA
LIMITED.,
34. G25010 SALBUTAMOL NOT CONT 36 1 51.9 CIPLA
132
100 MCG / DOSE
INHALER-200MD
MENT
IONE
D
OF
200MT
D
MONTH
S
LIMITED.,
35. G01005 KETAMINE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 50 MG / ML
INJECTION 2ML
IP 10 ML
VIAL
2
YEARS
1 11.5 CIRON
DRUGS
36. G01011 BUPIVACAINE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 0.5%
INJECTION
20ML
IP 20 ML
VIAL
24
MONTH
1 14 CIRON
DRUGS
37. G04010 PRALIDOXIME
CHLORIDE (2-
PAM)
INJECTION 1G
IP 20 ML
VIAL
2
YEARS
1 68 CIRON
DRUGS
38. G06115 ACICLOVIR 250
MG INJECTION
INTRAVENOUS
INFUSION
CPT 10 ML
AMP
24
MONTH
1 48.75 CIRON
DRUGS
39. G10011 HEPARIN
SODIUM 1000
IU / ML
INJECTION 5ML
IP 5 ML
AMP
24
MONTH
1 10.75 CIRON
DRUGS
40. G10012 HEPARIN
SODIUM 5000
IU / ML
INJECTION 2ML
IP 5 ML
AMP
24
MONTH
1 28 CIRON
DRUGS
41. G10014 PROTAMINE
SULPHATE 10
MG / ML
IP 5 ML
AMP
NOT
MENTI
ON
1 16.8 CIRON
DRUGS
133
INJECTION
10ML
42. G12061 DIGOXIN 0.25
MG / ML
INJECTION 2ML
IP 2 ML
VIAL
2
YEARS
1 4.25 CIRON
DRUGS
43. G12063 DOBUTAMINE
50MG/ML
INJECTION 5ML
USP 5 ML
AMP
2
YEARS
1 24 CIRON
DRUGS
44. G14003 TROPICAMIDE
1% EYE DROPS
IP 5 ML
BOTT
2
YEARS
1 18 CIRON
DRUGS
45. G21014 XYLOMETAZOL
INE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 0.1% NASAL
DROPS 10ML
IP 10 ML
BOTT
2
YEARS
1 7 CIRON
DRUGS
46. G21023 TIMOLOL
MALEATE 0.5%
EYE DROPS 5ML
IP 5 ML
BOTT
2
YEARS
1 9 CIRON
DRUGS
47. G24009 HALOPERIDOL 5
MG / ML
INJECTION 1ML
IP 1 ML
VIAL
NOT
MENTI
ON
1 3.8 CIRON
DRUGS
48. G01020 DIAZEPAM 5 MG
/ ML INJECTION
2ML
IP 2 ML
AMP
2
YEARS
1 0.89 ENDOVEN
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
PVT. LTD.
49. G06145 CHLOROQUINE
PHOSPHATE
(EQUIVALENT
TO 40MG OF
CHLOROQUINE/
ML) INJECTION
IP 5ML
AMP
2 YEAR 1 1.45 ENDOVEN
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
PVT. LTD.
134
50. G21004 GENTAMICIN
SULPHATE 0.3%
DROPS 5ML
BP 5ML
VIAL
2 YEAR 1 2.71 ENDOVEN
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
PVT. LTD.
51. G22002 METHYL
ERGOMETRINE
MALEATE 0.2
MG / ML
INJECTION 1ML
IP 1ML
AMP
18
MONTH
1 1.09 ENDOVEN
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
PVT. LTD.
52. G18023 CLOMIPHENE
CITRATE50 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
NOT
MENTI
ONED
100 79.95 IND-SWIFT
LIMITED.,
53. G12020 DILTIAZEM
HYDROCHLORI
DE 60 MG
TABLETS
CPT STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 2.9 JB
CHEMICAL
S &
PHARMAC
EUTIALS
LTD.
54. G05002 CARBAMAZEPI
NE 200 MG
TABLETS
IP 10X10 3 YEAR 100 39.99 LEGEND
DRUGS &
FORMULA
TINOS PVT.
LTD
55. G17021 DICYCLOMINE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 10 MG
TABLETS
IP 10 X10 3 YEAR 100 7.89 LEGEND
DRUGS &
FORMULA
TINOS PVT.
LTD
56. G12036 AMLODIPINE 10
MG TABLETS
BP 10 X
10
3
YEARS
100 22.4 LINCOLN
PHARMAC
EUTIALS
135
LTD.
57. G12054 NIFEDIPINE 10
MG SUSTAINED
RELEASE
CAPSULES OR
TABLETS
IP 10 X
10
3
YEARS
100 17.9 LINCOLN
PHARMAC
EUTIALS
LTD.
58. G17024 HYOSCINE
BUTYL
BROMIDE 20 MG
/ ML INJECTION
1ML
BP 1 ML
AMP
2
YEARS
1 3.96 LINCOLN
PHARMAC
EUTIALS
LTD.
59. G12045 ENALAPRIL
MALEATE 10
MG TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
24
MONTH
S
10 2.1 MEDLEY
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD.
60. G17023 HYOSCINE
BUTYL
BROMIDE 10 MG
TABLETS
CPT STRIP
OF 10
NOT
MENTI
ONED
100 63.82 MERCURY
LABS PVT
LTD.
61. G02007 PARACETAMOL
150 MG / ML
INJECTION 2ML
AMP
IP 2ML
AMP
18
MONTH
S
1 1.18 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
62. G03001 ADRENALINE
BITARTRATE 1
MG / ML
INJECTION 1ML
AMP
IP 1ML
AMP
12
MONTH
S
1 1.4 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
63. G06003 MEBENDAZOLE
100 MG
TABLETS
IP 10 X
10
18
MONTH
S
100 12 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
136
64. G06031 CLOXACILLIN
SODIUM 250 MG
CAPSULES
IP 10X10 18
MONTH
S
1 0.73 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
65. G06034 CLOXACILLIN
SODIUM 125
MG / 5 ML
SYRUP 40ML
BOTT
IP 60ML
BOTT
18
MONTH
S
1 8.4 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
66. G06042 CEPHALEXIN
125 MG / 5 ML
ORAL
SUSPENSION
30ML
IP 30ML
BOTT
18
MONTH
S
1 6.75 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
67. G06048 CHLORAMPHEN
ICOL 250 MG
CAPSULES
IP 10X10 24
MONTH
S
1 0.72 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
68. G06049 CHLORAMPHEN
ICOL 500 MG
CAPSULES
IP 10X10 24
MONTH
S
1 1.34 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
69. G06057 ERYTHROMYCI
N ESTOLATE 125
MG / 5 ML ORAL
SUSPENSION
60ML BOTT
IP 60ML
BOTT
18
MONTH
S
1 15.6 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
70. G06063 NALIDIXIC
ACID 250 MG
TABLETS
IP 10 X
10
18
MONTH
S
100 114 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
71. G06143 ARTESUNATE 60
MG INJECTION
PER VIAL
NOT
MENT
IONE
D
VAIL 18
MONTH
S
1 34 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
137
72. G06146 CHLOROQUINE
PHOSPHATE 50
MG / 5 ML
SYRUP 60ML
CPT 60ML
BOTT
24
MONTH
S
1 5.75 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
73. G06152 PYRIMETHAMIN
E AND
SULFADOXINE
(25MG+500MG)
TABLETS
IP 10 X
10
24
MONTH
S
100 119 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
74. G15009 POVIDONE
IODINE 5%
SOLUTION
500ML
IP 500ML
BOTT
24
MONTH
S
1 34.9 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
75. G17013 METOCLOPRAM
IDE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 5 MG / ML
INJECTION 2ML
AMP
IP 2ML
AMP
18
MONTH
S
1 1.14 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
76. G21001 CHLORAMPHEN
ICOL 0.5%
DROPS EYE 5ML
IP 5ML
VIAL
18
MONTH
S
1 3 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
77. G25007 SALBUTAMOL
SULPHATE 2 MG
TABLETS
IP 10 X
10
24
MONTH
S
100 13 MODERN
LABORAT
ORIES
78. G01004 KETAMINE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 10 MG / ML
INJECTION
10ML
IP 10ML
VIAL
18
MONTH
S
1 8.14 NANDANI
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
79. G03006 PHENIRAMINE IP 2ML 18 1 1.05 NANDANI
138
MALEATE 22.75
MG / ML
INJECTION 2ML
AMP MONTH
S
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
80. G06029 CEFUROXIME
SODIUM 250 MG,
INJECTION
USP 250MG
VIAL
18
MONTH
S
1 11.05 NANDANI
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
81. G06033 CLOXACILLIN
SODIUM 250 MG
INJECTION
IP 250MG
VIAL
18
MONTH
S
1 2.79 NANDANI
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
82. G06046 CHLORAMPHEN
ICOL SODIUM
SUCCINATE 1 G
INJECTION
IP 1G
VIAL
18
MONTH
S
1 9.6 NANDANI
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
83. G06151 QUININE
DIHYDROCHLO
RIDE 300 MG /
ML INJECTION
2ML
IP 2ML
AMP
18
MONTH
S
1 5.89 NANDANI
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
84. G17019 PROMETHAZINE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 25 MG / ML
INJECTION 2ML
IP 2ML
AMP
18
MONTH
S
1 1.11 NANDANI
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
85. G17022 DICYCLOMINE
HYDROCHLORI
IP 2ML
AMP
18
MONTH
1 1.11 NANDANI
MEDICAL
139
DE 10 MG / ML
INJECTION 2ML
S LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
86. G22004 OXYTOCIN 5 IU /
ML INJECTION
1ML
IP 1ML
AMP
18
MONTH
S
1 1.74 NANDANI
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
87. G24005 CHLORPROMAZ
INE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 25 MG / ML
INJECTION 2ML
IP 2ML
AMP
18
MONTH
S
1 1.28 NANDANI
MEDICAL
LABORAT
ORIES PVT
LTD
88. G01021 MIDAZOLAM 1
MG / ML
INJECTION 5ML
BP 5 ML
VIAL
NOT
MENTI
ONED
1 15.05 NEON
LAB .LTD
89. G01022 MIDAZOLAM 5
MG / ML
INJECTION5ML
BP 1 ML
AMP
NOT
MENTI
ONED
1 17.25 NEON
LAB .LTD
90. G05007 PHENOBARBITO
NE 200 MG / ML
INJECTION 1ML
IP 1 ML
VIAL
18
MONTH
S
1 11.45 NICHOLAS
PIRAMAL
INDIA
LIMITED.
91. G12032 VERAPAMIL
HYDROCHLORI
DE 80 MG
TABLETS
CPT STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 9.96 NICHOLAS
PIRAMAL
INDIA
LIMITED.
92. G12047 LOSARTAN
POTASSIUM 25
MG TABLETS
CPT STRIP
OF 10
2
YEARS
10 2.86 PARENTER
AL DRUGS
(I) LTD.
93. G12048 LOSARTAN CPT STRIP 2 10 4.68 PARENTER
140
POTASSIUM 50
MG TABLETS
OF 10 YEARS AL DRUGS
(I) LTD.
94. G26012 WATER FOR
INJECTION 5 ML
AMP
IP 5 ML
AMP
36
MONTH
S
1 0.96 PARENTER
AL DRUGS
(I) LTD.
95. G26013 WATER FOR
INJECTION 10
ML
CPT 10ML
AMP
3
YEARS
1 1.5 PARENTER
AL DRUGS
(I) LTD.
96. G08003 CYCLOSPORINE
25 MG
CAPSULES
USP STRIP
OF 5
3
YEARS
5 55 R.P.G LIFE
SCIENCES
LIMITED
97. G08004 CYCLOSPORINE
50 MG
CAPSULES
USP STRIP
OF 5
3
YEARS
5 90 R.P.G LIFE
SCIENCES
LIMITED
98. G08005 CYCLOSPORINE
100 MG
CAPSULES
USP STRIP
OF 5
3
YEARS
5 160 R.P.G LIFE
SCIENCES
LIMITED
99. G08006 CYCLOSPORINE
100 MG / ML
CONCENTRATE
FOR INJECTION
50ML
USP 50 ML
BOTT
24
MONTH
S
1 1500 R.P.G LIFE
SCIENCES
LIMITED
100. G19009 D.P.T VACCINE
INJECTION-10
DOSES
CPT VIAL NOT
MENTI
ONED
1 15.75 SHANTA
BIOTECHN
ICS PVT.
LTD.
101. G12034 AMLODIPINE 2.5
MG TABLETS
CPT STRIP
OF 10
2
YEARS
10 1.22 STADMED
PVT. LTD.
102. G12035 AMLODIPINE 5
MG TABLETS
CPT STRIP
OF 10
2
YEARS
10 1.41 STADMED
PVT. LTD.
103. G12052 NIFEDIPINE 10 IP STRIP 3 10 0.76 STADMED
141
MG TABLETS OF 10 YEARS PVT. LTD.
104. G12058 TERAZOSIN 2
MG TABLETS
CPT STRIP
OF 10
3
YEARS
10 4.52 STADMED
PVT. LTD.
105. G24002 CHLORPROMAZ
INE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 50 MG
TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
3
YEARS
10 2.92 STADMED
PVT. LTD.
106. G24007 HALOPERIDOL 5
MG TABLET
IP STRIP
OF 10
3
YEARS
10 0.94 STADMED
PVT. LTD.
107. G24010 TRIFLUOPERAZI
NE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 5 MG
TABLET
IP STRIP
OF 10
3
YEARS
10 1.35 STADMED
PVT. LTD.
108. G24023 NITRAZEPAM 10
MG TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
3
YEARS
10 1.47 STADMED
PVT. LTD.
109. G04008 NALOXONE HCL
0.4 MG / ML
INJECTION
USP 5 X 1
ML
AMP
2
YEARS
5 321.9 TROIKAA
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD.
110. G12012 ADENOSINE
3MG / ML
INJECTION
USP 2ML
AMP
3
YEARS
1 138.19 TROIKAA
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD.
111. G12013 AMIODARONE
100 MG
TABLETS
IP 10 X
10
3
YEARS
100 130 TROIKAA
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD.
112. G12014 AMIODARONE
200 MG
IP 10 X
10
3
YEARS
100 243.9 TROIKAA
PHARMAC
142
TABLETS EUTICALS
LTD.
113. G12015 AMIODARONE
150 MG
INJECTION
BP 5 X
3ML
AMP
3
YEARS
5 117.62 TROIKAA
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD.
114. G20004 PANCURONIUM
BROMIDE 2
MG/ML
INJECTION 2ML
BP 5 X
2ML
AMP
2
YEARS
5 50.76 TROIKAA
PHARMAC
EUTICALS
LTD.
115. G09002 BROMOCRIPTIN
E MESYLATE2.5
MG TABLETS
IP STRIP
OF 10
30
MONTH
S
10 18.9 UNI
SANKYO
LTD
116. G18022 CLOMIPHENE
CITRATE25 MG
TABLETS
BP STRIP
OF 10
54
MONTH
S
10 16 UNI
SANKYO
LTD
117. G18024 CLOMIPHENE
CITRATE 100 MG
TABLETS
BP STRIP
OF 5
54
MONTH
S
5 25 UNI
SANKYO
LTD
118. G18026 MEDROXY
PROGESTERONE
ACETATE 10 MG
TABLETS
USP STRIP
OF 10
36
MONTH
S
10 21 UNI
SANKYO
LTD
119. G02015 ALLOPURINOL
100 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
3
YEARS
100 65 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
120. G05005 PHENOBARBITO
NE 30 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
3
YEARS
100 13.96 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
121. G05006 PHENOBARBITO
NE 60 MG
CPT 10 X
10
3
YEARS
100 24.43 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
143
TABLETS LTD.
122. G06004 MEBENDAZOLE
100 MG / 5 ML
SUSPENSION
30ML
CPT 30 ML
BOTT
18
MONTH
S
1 5.82 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
123. G06008 DIETHYLCARBA
MAZINE
CITRATE 50 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 9 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
124. G06065 NITROFURANTO
IN 100 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 44 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
125. G08020 DANAZOL 50
MG CAPSULES
CPT 10 X
10
24
MONTH
S
100 378.27 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
126. G08021 DANAZOL 100
MG CAPSULES
CPT 10 X
10
24
MONTH
S
100 687.76 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
127. G08046 TAMOXIFEN
CITRATE 10 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 33.73 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
128. G08047 TAMOXIFEN
CITRATE 20 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 63.98 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
129. G12010 PROPRANOLOL
HYDROCHLORI
DE 40 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 13.96 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
130. G18005 PREDNISOLONE
10 MG TABLET
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 40.7 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
144
131. G18014 ETHINYLESTRA
DIOL 0.01 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 98.87 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
132. G18015 ETHINYLESTRA
DIOL 0.05 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 139.58 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
133. G18027 NORETHISTERO
NE 5 MG
TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 75.61 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
134. G24013 FLUOXETINE
HYDROCHLORI
DE 20 MG
CAPSULES
CPT 10 X
10
24
MONTH
S
100 25.59 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
135. G24022 NITRAZEPAM 5
MG TABLETS
CPT 10 X
10
36
MONTH
S
100 18.61 UNICURE
(I)PVT.
LTD.
136. G15002 COMPOUND
BENZOIN
TINCTURE
500ML
IP 500
ML
BOTT
5
YEARS
1 63.45 UNIJULES
LIFE
SCIENCES
LTD
137. G18018 INSULIN
(SOLUBLE) 40 IU
/ ML INJECTION
10ML
USP 10ML
VIAL
NOT
MENTI
ONED
1 63.9 WOCKHAR
DT
LIMITED.,
138. G18019 ISOPHANE
INSULIN
40IU/ML
INJECTION
10ML
USP 10ML
VIAL
NOT
MENTI
ONED
1 63.9 WOCKHAR
DT
LIMITED.,
Source: OPPI 2008
145
CHAPTER-5- PRICE VARIATION IN POPULAR
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES- A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Though the pharmaceutical Industry in India has grown with tremendous pace since
independence, not more than 40% of the population of our country can enjoy the benefit of
modern medicine. Cost of health care is rising rapidly the world over. Experts in our country
apprehend that the price of drugs in India too will be high as a consequence of recent changes in
global policy, and then it may not be possible to make medicines reach a broad fraction of the
population. This may be due to complex socioeconomic reasons, including a number of factors
e.g. not following the Essential Drug List, an imperfect drug distribution system, irrational use of
medicines, misuse of drugs, multiple prescribing to name a few. Though several investigators
worked in this field in different other countries as well as in India there is still a lot of scope for a
systematic and well-designed scientific study to identify the reasons and to suggest probable
measures to solve the problem.
Health administrators and policy makers need to urgently redesign the existing health
infrastructure to extend health care to a greater section of people at an affordable cost. For this
purpose it is essential to collect data to assess the Drug Utilization Pattern of different countries
and to make necessary interventions and policy changes to eliminate the shortcomings present, if
any.
Indian markets are flooded with a huge number of branded formulations, available for every drug
molecule, with simultaneous pricing difference between the different brands of the same
formulation. This apart from creating confusion among innocent consumers, often, allows them
to be misled by unfair traders. The current study aims to project a representative view of the
existing situation, by collecting data about brand availability, and difference in pricing between
various brands of 20 drugs, under six therapeutic categories.
National availability of different brands (as per CIMS), the number of brands available in the
town, city and rural segments in general, in West Bengal are less. It may be due to the fact that
all the manufacturers are not marketing each of their products uniformly at all corners throughout
the country. Some of them target a specific state or district. Sometimes they may prefer
marketing in cities or towns or rural areas. Brands not available are manufactured by less reputed
146
companies. In all sectors, town, city and rural areas, almost equal number of brands are found
available, with a slightly higher availability in the cities. This may be due to the higher demand
in cities because of more practicing specialist physicians as compared to rural areas, more
affordability, and easy access for the city-based population to different brands, due to higher no.
of wholesale and retail sale outlets. In case of prednisolone, ibuprofen and
ibuprofen+paracetamol reverse trend was observed. The reason may be that all the products of
all manufacturers are not listed in the CIMS. Extra brands available are not popular brands and
manufactured by mediocre companies. However, prices of those products were comparable to
that of the products of standard companies.
Price difference between different brands of products (single drug or drug combinations) were
found to vary up to the extent of 881% (in case of amlodipine) on the higher side, 7% (in case of
doxycycline) on the lower side. Out of all the brands studied, it was observed that the highest
priced brand was the most sold in case of 5 products (single drug/combinations), and the lowest
priced brand was the most sold in case of 2 products. This may be due to brand loyalty of the
prescribers. If the consumers were the decision makers the picture could have been different,
since the price factor would play a major role then.
In the National Essential Drugs List and 14 were found in CIMS-1996. Out of these 14 products
that were listed in CIMS, 11 products were included in the National EDL. Among these 11
products, prices have increased (over a span of 1996-2004) for 8 products, and decreased for 2
products, and has remained unchanged for one product only. The maximum rise in price has
been 131%. Out of the 3 drugs not included in the EDL, price of 2 molecules have increased,
over the years but price decrease was noted for one drug. Analysis showed that prices of drugs in
general, including those within the scope of EDL, have increased.
It was noted that % increment of price of 8 products was less than those of drugs that were not
under the purview of DPCO. Prices were reduced for only 2 drugs within DPCO.
Large number of brands available for a drug is a matter of concern, since patients get confused,
as well as random brand substitution takes place, with disregard to bioequivalence, therapeutic
equivalence and cost of treatment. The difference in price between various brands of the same
drug is too wide, leading to unfair burden on the consumer. Due consideration must be placed on
pricing of drugs in the EDL, to increase their accessibility to common people.
147
The widely divergent prices within developing countries show the lack of transparency and put
into question current pricing practices. The existence of market monopolies is the most important
determinant of these differences; when multinational drug companies have exclusive marketing
rights, they tend to demand the highest possible prices, leaving out of reach for the vast majority
of the population leaving in developing countries.
Table 1: Compared prices of branded drugs from different countries, in US$.
Spain is considered to be the one which has the lowest prices.
INDIA UK SPAIN price
differential:
India vs. Spain
price
differential:
India vs. Spain
in %
zidovudine 100mg,
tab
1.68 0.47 2.3 x4.89 79
zidovudine 250
mg, tab
4.2 1.18 0.56
zidovudine 300
mg, tab
5.03 1.41 0.69
ZDV/3TC, 300-150
mg, tab
8.03 3.59 3.8 x1.06 5.5
lamivudine 150
mg,tab
3.83 1.96 2.25 x1.15 13
saquinavir 200mg,
tab
0.78 0.75 0.8 x1.06 6.25
zalcitabine 0.75
mg, tab
2.13 1.12 1.99 x1.77 43.7
nelfinavir 250 mg,
tab
1.51 0.81 2.26 x2.79 64
itraconazole 100
mg tab
2.01 0.88 3.67 x4.2 76
148
ketoconazole 200
mg tab
0.74 0.27 0.65 x2,4 58
acyclovir 200 mg 0.6 0.41 1.6 x3.9 74
ciprofloxacine 250
mg tab
1.05 0.37 0.96 x2.6 61.5
ceftriaxone 250 mg
injec.
3.85 2.14 6.3 x13,5 66
Sources: October 2008. Joint UNICEF-UNAIDS-WHO/EDM-MSF Project
Table 2: Institutional prices of HIV/AIDS drugs, antibiotics and others in US$ in several
countries.
DRUG
(INN)
zidovudine
100mg
tablet
lamivudine
150mg
tablet
AZT+3T
C
300+150
mg tab
fluconazole
tab 200mg
(50mg for
Nigeria)
ceftriaxone
1 g vial
ciprofloxac
ine 250 mg
tab
Argentina 0.2g 0.4g 0.8g N/A N/A N/A
Brazil 0.1g 0.3g 0.7g N/A N/A N/A
Colombia 0.7g 1.7g N/A 0.4g 7.2 0.05g
Guatemala 0.4g 2.4 3.9 0.6g 1.8g 0.05g
India 0.2g 0.4g 0.9g 0.6g 1.8g N/A
South
Africa
0.4 1.1 1.5 4.1 10.9 0.4
Thailand 0.2 2.5 2.3 0.3g 1.7g 0.06g
Uganda 0.7 1.6 3.7 1.3 4.4 0.14g
Nigeria 1.19 2.52 6.9 4.09 17.23 0.96
Price
differential:
India vs.
best price
12 6.3 9.8 10 10 19
Price
differential
92 88 89.8 90 90 95
149
India vs.
best price
(%)
Source: May 2009 Joint UNICEF-UNAIDS Secretariat-WHO/HTP-MSF Project
Table 3: Recent offers by pharmaceutical companies: prices per unit in US$
Cipla(India)
(generic
company)
0.15(or
0.26)
0.14 0.66
Hetero(India)
(generic
company)
0.13 0.68 0.45 0.04
Aurobindo(India)
(generic Cie)
0.12 0.89 0.75 0.08 0.37
Glaxo(Nigeria) 0.3 0.24 0.94
Price differential:
India vs. best
price
x 2.5 x 3 x 2.5
Price differential:
India vs. best
price in %
60% 66% 61%
Source: MSF Lagos survey
Differences of prices in different countries for the same branded drug:
Among the range of prices of the medicines studied, the lowest price in the European
Community (Spain) is up to 79% decreased compared to India. (table1)
The drugs that have been studied in India come from the companies themselves, and they are
usually imported by importers, from the USA and UK mainly.
Also for many treatments, companies sell the same drug at very different prices in different
countries. For example, Roche’s rocephine (branded version of ceftriaxone), is 58% less
150
expensive in Colombia than in india. Glaxo’s Combivir (association of AZT+lamivudine for
HIV) is 43% less expensive in Guatemala than in India.
Impact of generic competition on prices:
The presence or the absence of generic competition is a key determinant of pricing levels. For
example in Thailand, after three companies introduced generic versions of fluconazole in 1998,
Pfizer dropped its price for fluconazole. A comparison of prices in different countries, where
generics clearly show how the generic competition can influence and lower the prices: prices are,
on average, 91% more expensive than in other developing countries where there is generic
competition. as an example, in Thailand, ceftriaxone inj., an antibiotic is sold at 1.7 US$, 10
times cheaper than in India (17,23 US$ per vial).
The offer done by a multinational company in India is still higher than what some generic
companies can offer in other countries. For instance, prices in Nigeria are still on average 62%
higher than those from generic companies. (table 3)
This comparison shows how generic competition can decrease prices and therefore improve
access to medicines to the poorest population.
Impact of market monopoly:
The monopoly and the non-availability of generic medicines have direct repercussions on the
prices: table 2 shows an increase of prices in India compared to other countries where there is
generic competition in the market up to 91%.
Impact of political will:
Countries like Brazil (who settled a national protocol on HIV treatment), Senegal (negotiating
the AAI) prove that prices can be brought at affordable level for the population. On the other
side, countries which import drugs (South Africa, India) have much higher prices.
This illustrates that the political will has a direct impact on the pharmaceutical market, and that
the government can take national measures which are in favor of the nation.
India is facing now a huge problem that is making accessible life-saving drugs. Currently, the
drugs (mainly ARVs, OI drugs like antibiotics, antifungal,) are not easily available and not
affordable, because of the non-existence of a proper national drug policy, is importing drugs
from different countries, without settling an international tender which would bring down the
prices.
151
Nevertheless, quality generic combination treatment is available in the world. If large quantities
are demanded, generic producers will in a few years be able to bring down the price of most of
the medicines.
Also, governments are able to make medicines available at lower cost by using the key legal
mechanisms. It is the responsibility of the Indian government to make use of these safeguards.
There is an ethical imperative to provide treatment to the population. These health exceptions
are:
Compulsory license: it is one of the element in TRIPs that is designed to mitigate the negative
consequences of patent monopoly. According to this article, WTO members states may allow the
use of compulsory license to a third party without the owner’s consent, in specific cases: national
emergency, extreme urgency, public non commercial use.
Parallel imports: it is based on the principle of exhaustion of rights. When written into national
law, this allows cross border trade in a patent product without the permission of the patent’s
owner. Parallel imports allow countries to import brand name products from countries where
they are sold at lower prices. for instance, India should be able to import drugs from Spain, the
cheapest source of drugs in Europe, instead of other countries like UK.
Bolar exception (or early working exception): it allows generic manufacturers to begin
preparing generic production and completing regulatory registration before patents expire so that
upon expiration they can immediately begin selling their drugs. This provision that promptly
after the expiration of the patent, generic cheaper drugs are introduced in the market.
All these exceptions are TRIPs compliant and internationally recognized. Therefore, it is a legal
tool that governments should use to improve access to essential medicines.
DRUG PRICE DIFFERENTIALS ACROSS DIFFERENT RETAIL MARKET
SETTINGS
Drugs are a major item of private health spending
Drugs, a “decisive technology”, constitute 20- 60% of total health care expenditure in developing
countries (Abel-Smith 1994, WHO/WTO 2001), About 85% of India’s total health expenditure is
financed by household out-of-pocket expenditure (Government of India 2002). A major portion
of the private health care spending goes to drugs and per capita private drug spending in India is
estimated as US $ 16 (Abel-Smith 1994). In other words, expenditure on drugs imposes a major
financial burden on households, especially when it is met from out-of-pocket expenditure due to
152
total lack of health insurance and risk protection. This is further compounded by the fact that
majority of government health care institutions including those in rural areas lack critical inputs
such as drugs (Government of India 2002a). As a result, drug prices act as a strong barrier to
seeking effective health care in India, as they are high and people lack purchasing power. There
are instances when people go without drugs (by extension without treatment) or buy a small
proportion of the required doses of drugs due to high prices. The situation gets increasingly
worse as time progresses, as drug prices grow faster than the national or per capita income in
India.
Modulation, although not clearly estimated, could be 3-5 times higher in India compared to
general inflation (about 5-6%). Given 6-7% growth of GDP and 4-5% growth of per capita GDP,
modulation cuts into the household budget heavily. The cycle of hyperflation of drug prices –
heavy financial burden – partial/no purchase of drugs goes on and on. Fast paced drug prices also
mean that drug buyers get less and less value for money.
High drug prices could mean two things; first, cost price of drugs is high due to high research
and production cost and second, high mark-up of the retail prices due to lack of competition or
cartel behavior. In other words, drug prices can be kept under check through fast and less
expensive research and creation of settings that charge less mark-up. High mark-up is an
important phenomenon in India particularly after the partial withdrawal of drug price control in
recent times.
Given this context, this paper analyses the price differentials across various market/ownership
settings. Retail prices of 12 commonly used drugs are considered for this purpose.
Increasing drug prices and decreasing role for government
While the share of drugs in private spending is as high as 60-70% depending on the type of
illness, their share in government spending is less than 10% (Varatharajan et al 2002). The
effective reach of this 10% itself gets reduced if the drug prices rise faster than the government
budget on drugs. In other words, the proportion of drug demand met by the government(s) gets
reduced as a result of hike in drug prices. This forces the people to rely heavily on drug retailers.
Once they are pushed towards the market, their drug purchase obeys the law of demand. A study
in USA reveals that when the overall out-of-pocket expenditure on drugs doubled consumption
of drugs went down by 22% (RAND 2004). Studies have also brought out the fact households
sought low-cost alternatives following the price rise. The ill-effect of the drug price hike does not
153
spare the insured, as they would have to pay higher premium on account of increased drug prices
if the insurance agency agrees to cover the drug cost.
In addition to additional financial burden, there could be health ill-effects too. If left untreated or
partially treated, the disease in question will get aggravated resulting in death or disability. On
the other hand, self-medication, which is another possibility, results in incorrect self-diagnosis
and inappropriate dosage thereby, inducing the side effects (Chang and Trivedi 2003). Since
there is a negative relationship between self-medication and household economic status, the poor
resort more to self-medication and drug forms a very important component of it, Hence rising
prices may affect the poor the most.
Drug-an unusual commodity
Why drug industry, or medical industry, prices shoot up much faster than other prices in an
economy? Drugs also display interestingly distinct characteristics compared to general
commodities in terms of the usual demand-supply-market relationship. While expansion of
production/supply and increased competition reduce the price of other commodities, expansion is
associated with an increase in price in case of the medical technology that includes drugs. As
mentioned earlier, there are two reasons for this. First, cost of inventing a drug is high because
the inventor has to meet a series of ethical standards before the drugs are brought to the market.
It means that only a small proportion of the drugs that are developed actually qualify to enter the
market. It leaves the inventor with the only option of making up the cost of the ‘wasted drug’ by
including it in the ‘successful’ drugs. Higher indivisibilities in the production of drugs etc make
the industry significant for special attention from researchers, health professionals and policy
makers. Monopolistic tendencies prevailing in the drug industry by means of patents and higher
capital requirements for a good amount of drugs prevent the industry form getting competitive on
its own intrinsically. A brief analysis shows that free market through price competition does not
reduce the prices of drugs facing the consumer due to the kind of market structure within which
drug industry is placed. The imperfections in the market is predominantly attributed to the
incentive structure both the physicians and pharmacists are facing and the nature of the supply
side by way of various forms of patent protection, risk involved, indivisibilities in supply etc.
Production cost will also be high if the producers strictly adhere to the quality standards.
Since drug companies’ decision to invest in R&D is also determined by the potential profitability
of such a venture, it is true that they may invest very little resources on the diseases affecting the
154
economically weaker ones whose purchasing power is very thin. In such case, the profit
maximizing companies mostly concentrate on the market of diseases of the rich. For example, of
the 1700 odd drugs developed between 1975 and 1998 in the world, only 13 drugs were
developed for the poor man’s tropical diseases (Mishra et el 2003). Due to the interaction
between income and prices elasticity, price margins tend to be higher for drugs demanded by the
rich and vice versa.
That is the reason why the producers tend to produce the rich persons’ drugs first.
Second, the market for drugs is imperfect in the sense that there exits entry cost. Since the drug
sellers enjoy some form of ‘protection’ from other entries into the market, they have the ‘liberty’
to fix a higher mark-up when they decide their retail price. Drug companies to compete with
each other to offer higher ‘margin’ to the drug retailers.
The prices of the same drug vary this much across different sellers. Principal-agent relationship
between the health care provider, especially physician and to some extent pharmacist and the
patients also plays a role in drug price hike. Pharmaceutical companies try to woe physicians and
pharmacists through aggressive marketing tactics. Drug is one market in which there exists no
direct relationship between the consumers and producers in which the agent –
physician/pharmacist – takes decision on behalf of the consumers. It is well known that if the
former are motivated by additional profits in taking a decision, it may compromise the interests
of patients, helping the producers/retailers of drugs.
It results in prescribing more than what is considered ‘optimal’ and prescriptions without any
scientific justification lead to what is called ‘flat-of the- curve medicine’ (consuming drugs
without improvement in health outcomes) as well as increased financial burden on patients. A
study in Satara district of Maharashtra found that irrational prescriptions were more in the private
sector than in the government health services (Phadke et al 1995) and the additional burden due
to it was more than double when treatment was sought from the former. Unless physician has
access to reliable information from non-commercial sources, he/she tends to be primarily
influenced by advertisements and drug representatives. Such practices would make the demand
curve inelastic thereby facilitating higher mark-up.
Indian Context
India is one of the very few developing countries which has been fortunate enough to have a well
developed and self-reliant drug production basically achieved by the support the domestic
155
industry received from the government as well as the existence of a patent regime favorable to
the country. The government helped the domestic private drug companies with bulk drugs at
very low costs and also provided a good amount of other incentives like grants for research and
development as well as various tax exceptions. However, the government wanted in return that
the prices charged for drugs by companies should be accessible to the vast majority of Indians.
By means of various regulatory instruments like cost plus mark-up pricing etc, the government
has been keeping the prices under check for quite some time.
The process based patenting system also helped the domestic companies to adopt what is called
“reverse engineering” and thus able to produce a drug at a fraction of the cost in most of the
developed countries. However, India has already made commitments to dismantling these two
policies. For example, the amount of drugs whose prices were regulated earlier has come down
drastically and the process based patenting is going to a halt within few months. It is often
argued that the cost plus mark-up pricing has a built –in disincentive to produce drugs efficiently
because higher the cost, higher will be the mark-up.
However, studies point out that prices of drugs smart moving up when once prices are
decontrolled. The existence of large-scale product differentiation through brand names without
having significant variation in the chemical contents, advertising, aggressive sales promotion etc
reduce the relevance of price competition in the drug market. A brief look at the Indian drug
price scenario since 1990s will prove that the decontrolled drugs are having the highest rise in
prices.
Since 1961, pharmaceuticals have fallen under price regulation in India; a total of 343 drugs –
accounting for 85% of the drug market – were under price control in 1979. Profitability allowed
on price-controlled drugs ranged from 40% to 75% (Gupta 2002). The number of drugs under
price control was reduced on 74 in 1995 covering only 35% of the drugs. Allowed profitability
too went up to 150%. By 2002, the share of drugs under price control went further down to 25%
or just 32 drugs. Prior to 1995 when the number of drugs under price control was revised
downward, the annual price rise of drugs was estimated at 10-50% (Rare 1999). It would be
higher now under price decontrol. Price decontrol seems to have facilitated the growth of Indian
Pharmaceutical industry; it registered a growth of 10% between 1996-97 and 2002-03 (CMIE
2004). Sales have gone up by 88,8% from Rs. 161.50 billion in 1996-97 to Rs. 304.80 billion in
2002-03. Selling (advertising) costs represent 15% of the total revenue indicating that
156
pharmaceutical companies indulge in aggressive marketing to sell their products. Obviously, the
burden is passed on to the drug buyers.
Another feature of the Indian drug market since the mid-1990s has been the increasing
concentration of drugs producers. Statistics provided by the Director General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) indicate that the number of drug companies have come
down from 252 in 1996-97 to 205 in 2002-03. The Herfindahl Index of Concentration doubled
from 0.008 in 1996-97 to 0.016 in 2002-03 (CMIE 2004) implying that the competition is
slowing down.
Further, the market share of the first 30 companies has gone up from 30.8% of the domestic drug
market in 1996-97 to 55.2% in 2002-03. Nevertheless, whether decreased concentration had any
unfavorable impact on the drug prices is not known yet.
Retail price differentials
In addition to the branded drugs that generally comply with quality standards, drug retailers
come into contact with local manufacturers of different variants of the same drug. Even branded
drugs are sold at different prices. All these contribute to the variability of drug prices when they
reach the end users. The price mark-up of different drugs and of different variants of the same
drug vary greatly. While it would be difficult to establish the mark-up for local produces, one can
try to capture the mark-up for branded ones, as they are likely to have uniform mark-up. In this
paper, we attempt to estimate the retail mark-up of 12 commonly used branded drugs in
Thiruvananthapuram district. We try to capture the variability in mark-up across five different
settings –
(1) government-owned drug stores,
(2) society-owned drug stores,
(3) private drug stores in competitive setting,
(4) private drug stores in spatial monopoly setting, and
(5) private drug stores within hospitals.
These are the most prevalent forms for drug stores in Kerala. By society, we mean the medicine
shops attached to some public hospitals and run autonomously in which the government do not
have a stake in its day-to-day management. Competitive market setting is defined here as a
specific place having large number of public as well as private retail medicine shops. Spatial
157
monopoly implies that there is only one private retail medicine shop in a given geographical
area.
A priori, government-owned drug stores are likely to have the least prices, as they are ‘nonprofit’
ventures, Society-run stores attempt to make a nominal profit and so, can be termed as ‘not-for
profit’ stores. Prices set by the society will, therefore, be a bit higher than that of the government
stores and the mark-up could be up to 5% to cover at least their operational cost. Price stores in a
competitive setting, although profit seekers, are likely to compete with each other to set a lower
price, unless they form cartels. Cartels are difficult to sustain in practice, especially at the local
level. Their prices are likely to be higher than the government and society owned stores. These
stores may have a profit margin of about 10-15%. The last two are monopoly settings – first is a
spatial monopoly and the other is the controlled monopoly.
The store existing within a hospital setting may sometimes sell at a lower price, if the hospital
decides to use the drug store as its ‘door opener’.
Prescription medicines play a leading role in health care, but a public debate rages over
what these drugs should cost.
Today’s innovative medicines have turned many diseases that were once virtual death sentences
into treatable conditions, including diabetes, congestive heart failure, and some forms of cancer.
Prescription drugs can also ease the symptoms of arthritis and other chronic ailments, and they
can help prevent degenerative disabilities, such as osteoporosis, that were once considered a
normal consequence of aging.
Humankind—particularly the citizens of developed nations like the United States—has clearly
benefited from the efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, yet those efforts can hardly be
characterized as altruistic. Producing “wonder drugs” is one of the most lucrative enterprises in
the United States; its average profit margin of 15% has given investors an annual return of 25%
during the past decade. Little wonder, then, that Big Pharma is constantly increasing its
commitment to R&D. In 2000, companies invested more than $26 billion to discover and
develop new medicines.
158
No one disputes the dramatic changes in our quality of life that are attributable to prescription
drug advances. But many Americans want to know why the United States has the highest drug
prices in the world. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the manufacturer
of the arthritis drug Lodine for selling it for $108 a month when prescribed for humans and $38
when prescribed for dogs. And why was it necessary for Congress to enact legislation last year
that allows pharmacists to import prescription drugs from countries such as Canada, where, due
to government price controls, they sell for substantially less than in the United States?
Former President Bill Clinton posed that question in October 1999, when he ordered a
comprehensive study of why drug prices are so much higher in the United States than elsewhere.
Some say the study was Clinton’s way of getting even with the pharmaceutical industry for its
role in killing Clinton’s plan to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare for the elderly.
“Pharmaceutical companies use the United States as their safety valve,” claims Alan Sager, head
of the Access and Affordability Project at Boston University’s School of Public Health. “If other
countries negotiate or regulate to win lower prices, drug makers raise their prices on the hapless
American consumer”.
But before you conclude that Big Pharma is ripping us off, keep in mind that finding the correct
pricing strategy for prescription drugs is a complex, high-stakes puzzle for drug companies.
Covering all the costs of bringing a single new drug to market and achieving commercial success
—even after patent protection, cash incentives, tax credits, orphan drug protection, and managed
care reimbursements have kicked in—requires complex pricing strategies. Indeed, according to
research conducted by Duke University economists Henry Grabowski and John Vernon, from a
historical standpoint, only 3 out of 10 drugs have recouped or exceeded their R&D costs.
That means those three drugs must be priced so they will earn enough to recover the R&D costs
of the seven drugs that were not commercial successes.
The pharmaceutical industry correctly points out that the cost of a medicine is not simply the cost
of its ingredients. Big Pharma contends that discovering, developing, testing, and gaining
regulatory approval for new medicines do not come cheap: As an example, for every 5000
medicines initially evaluated, on average, only five are tested in clinical trials, and only one of
159
those is approved for patient use. Accordingly, the industry strongly believes that revenues from
successful medicines must cover the costs of the vast majority of “losers”.
Big Pharma’s case
Other data cited by the pharmaceutical industry in support of how it prices drugs include the
following:
The average cost of bringing one new medicine to market is $500 million.
It takes an average of 12 to 15 years to discover and develop a new medicine. Most of
that time is spent testing the drug to make sure it is safe.
Although the cost of developing drugs is soaring, the time that companies have to recoup
their investment is shrinking because of stepped-up competition from generic drugs.
Companies fund research on future medicines and improvements to existing medicines
with revenues from medicines on the market. One out of every five dollars in revenues is
poured back into R&D. Pharmaceutical companies now are working on more than 1000
new medicines—for Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, cystic fibrosis, and arthritis, to name a
few. More than 350 medicines are in the pipeline for cancer alone.
The cost of medicines reflects their enormous value—to patients, society, and the health
care system. The industry warns that if drug prices are regulated, pharmaceutical
companies may have less incentive to create new medicines because the costs will not be
recoverable.
The data just cited suggest that although the pharmaceutical industry as a whole has been
enormously successful, only a few large companies with deep pockets can afford to compete in
that market because developing drugs is time-consuming, expensive, and risky. For
pharmaceutical corporations, investment involves four areas of concern: the development of the
drug, which includes all expenses incurred in conducting primary research; testing, which
involves the expense of conducting clinical trials required by the FDA to ensure safety and
effectiveness; manufacturing, which covers the costs associated with producing the drug (e.g.,
raw materials, production machinery, and labor); and marketing, which includes expenses
incurred to inform physicians, pharmacists, and insurance executives about the drug. Therefore,
160
even under conditions of extensive competition, pharmaceutical prices would be high. The
question is, do they need to be as high as they are?
Economic theory and price fairness
One way to determine what the cost of a drug should be is to apply classical economic concepts.
In classical economic theory, the price a corporation charges its customers for a product is the
total cost of investment plus a normal profit. Critics of the pharmaceutical industry argue that
prices charged by pharmaceutical corporations are unfair to consumers because they are
excessive, that is, the profit margin is not “normal”. Proponents of free market theory argue that
as long as free market forces determine the selling price of pharmaceutical products, the price
charged is, by definition, “fair”.
In a free market, there are two pricing models: opportunity-based pricing and risk-based pricing.
Opportunity-based pricing sets the price at the highest possible level that buyers are willing to
pay, without increasing production volume to the point where it diminishes total profit. Under
this model, some patients are inevitably priced out of the market, but this is considered a problem
outside the purview of economics.
Risk-based pricing accounts for the financial and market risks that a company takes by pursuing
an economic opportunity in a given market. The greater the risk taken by the company, the
higher the expectation for profit. Conversely, the lower the risk, the lower the profit expectation.
Under a risk-based pricing policy, an “unfair” price is one that is set higher than the risk
exposure can justify. Both pricing models are indifferent to the actual distribution of a product
among consumers, making it impossible—in theory—for pharmaceutical companies to exercise
any social obligations toward price-sensitive patients by adjusting prices. Obviously, pure
economic theory will not help us determine how drugs should be priced.
Those who believe that there should be some degree of price regulation argue that you cannot
evaluate the fairness of a drug-pricing policy unless you examine how it affects both sellers and
buyers. They contend that drug prices that result from either opportunity-based or risk-based
pricing and that therefore end up depriving some buyers of necessary, lifesaving drug treatment
are “unfair”.
161
Of the two pricing models, this group prefers the cost-based pricing model because it takes into
account a company’s total investment in product development, testing, manufacture, and
marketing and then sets profit margins at a certain “reasonable” percentage. The immediate
question raised by this preference is, how do you define “reasonable”? Some take the view that a
reasonable price is one in which the selling price does not greatly exceed the full cost of
researching, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and distributing the drug, where costs
include a return on the investment sufficient to cover the investor’s risks of failure and the
opportunity costs of capital. In other words, a fair price is one that allows an investor—in this
case a pharmaceutical company—to earn a profit that is comparable to profits (investment
returns) that are available in other enterprises.
Although economists can—and do—put forward different pricing concepts, models, and
theories, the general public will never view the pricing of pharmaceuticals in this context. A drug
can save someone’s life—how can you put a price on that? Certainly not by discussing such
esoterica as opportunity-based and risk-based pricing.
Price controls
Price controls have been tried numerous times but have not worked. Instead, they tend to
produce shortages and black markets. Price controls on oil and natural gas in the 1970s led to
widespread artificial shortages and long lines at the gasoline pump.
There is no question that price controls on pharmaceuticals would discourage investment in drug
research. If we accept what the industry tells us—that it takes $500 million and 12–15 years to
bring a drug to market—then investors will probably put their money elsewhere unless there is a
possibility of a return on that investment commensurate with its high risk. Even the threat of
price controls can push down research spending just when we need new treatments most. In fact,
every year since 1980, pharmaceutical companies have increased research spending by double
digits—except in 1994 and 1995, just after price controls were proposed as part of the Clinton
health care reform plan.
The United States is the world leader in pharmaceutical innovation—at least in part because of
its relatively free market for pharmaceuticals. Nearly half of the major prescription drugs
162
developed during the past two decades originated in the United States. It is no accident that the
United States—where free market competition is allowed to determine prices—produces the
most innovation, and that countries with price controls on pharmaceuticals produce the least.
The bottom line
The argument made by the pharmaceutical industry in support of its pricing structure is
compelling. It can indeed cost millions of dollars and take many years to research, develop, test,
and market a new drug. But there are other industries—the defense industry for one—with
similar attributes. There is nothing unique about the drug pricing process. Pharmaceutical
companies strive to recover all their costs and make a profit that will satisfy shareholders.
In formulating a pricing strategy to recover all the costs associated with developing and
marketing a prescription drug, pharmaceutical companies tend to charge what they think the
market will bear. The natural tendency is to set different prices for different markets, which is
called “differential pricing”. Drugs sold for humans generally sell for more than drugs sold for
animals. Drugs sold in rich countries are priced higher than drugs sold in poor countries. That’s
why a daily dose of the AIDS drug PLC sells for $18 in the United States and $9 in Uganda. In
many developing nations, prescription drugs—like most other commodities—are often priced
lower than in developed countries. In these countries, per capita incomes are much lower than in
the United States. If U.S. prices were charged, there would be few buyers. In some cases,
prescription drugs are available at a price that enables a pharmaceutical company to cover the
extra costs of selling its product in that market and to make some contribution to funding
ongoing and future R&D costs.
Price variation is an entirely normal phenomenon. This is even true for prescription drugs that
are sold at the retail level. Shop around and see for yourself. It’s true in many countries for all
manner of products, which is not surprising, given the fact that local supply and demand
conditions differ from country to country. Differences exist not only in the prices of basic
consumer items such as food and groceries, but also in the prices of items that depend on creative
ability, such as college tuition and professional services. In many international comparisons,
drug prices are highest in the United States, but for other commodities, prices are higher
163
elsewhere. A McDonald’s Big Mac costs more than three times as much in Switzerland as in
Hungary, while the price in the United States is in the middle of the range. The price of a
cappuccino at Starbucks is about twice as high in Tokyo as in New Zealand.
Another factor to consider is the extent and nature of the generic drug industry. The United
States has a vital generic drug industry, thanks in large part to the 1984 passage of the Waxman–
Hatch Act. Under this law, the entry of generic products into the marketplace is greatly
facilitated when the patent of an innovative product expires. Generics significantly affect the
prices that American consumers pay for drugs. In this country, generics compete fiercely with
each other, with the innovator’s brand, and with other patented products. When a patent expires,
generic products enter the marketplace––driving down the sales of the non-patent-protected
innovator’s products as well as the prices of the generic counterparts through market
competition.
The entry of generic therapies is, and promises to be, increasingly important in this country as a
means of cost containment. In 2000, 39 innovative drugs, with 1998 worldwide sales exceeding
$13 billion, lost patent protection, and this year, an additional 34 drugs with more than $15
billion in 1998 revenues will be subject to generic competition.
A global mix
Many other complexities confound cross-country comparisons of pharmaceutical prices. Indeed,
to assess the overall impact on consumers, it is essential to look at an entire market basket of
products. Patricia M. Danzon has created an extensive body of research. Danzon is the Celia Z.
Moh Professor of Health Care Systems, Insurance, and Risk Management at the Wharton School
of the University of Pennsylvania. In an article in Regulation, a publication of the Cato Institute,
Danzon says, “Cross-national and domestic price differences are smaller than has been alleged.
Most countries other than the United States regulate drug prices, either directly through controls
on prices (e.g., France and Italy), indirectly through limits on reimbursement under social
insurance schemes (e.g., Germany and Japan), or indirectly through profit controls (like the
U.K.)”. Danzon contends that because the U.S. health care system is not regulated, drug prices
here are often higher. Individual U.S. health care providers cannot come close to matching the
164
bargaining power of, say, the Canadian government in negotiating drug prices. We pay more (at
times) for drugs, which is precisely why the United States is a fertile environment for
pharmaceutical R&D.
No matter how you slice it, there is no escaping the fact that U.S. consumers are paying more for
drugs because they are, on average, richer than their counterparts in the rest of the world and can
afford to spend more of their wealth on health care. Another factor that influences the price of
drugs in the United States is the kind of drugs that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry produces.
Because the rich countries have most of the money, pharmaceuticals research focuses on health
problems of interest to those markets, such as obesity, heart disease, and cancer, and not on
malaria and other predominantly third-world maladies. So why shouldn’t the pharmaceutical
industry attempt to recoup its investment by charging more for its drugs in the rich countries?
Finally, sometimes the absence of competition drives up U.S. drug prices. A pharmaceutical
company that is the first to bring to market a new drug that it has patented operates as a
monopoly until other companies can offer competing products. Until then, the first company can
charge any price it believes it can get in the marketplace. But would you begrudge that company
its patent, which was granted after many years of research, testing, and capital investment?
Without such patent protection, what pharmaceutical company would be foolish enough to look
for a cure for cancer or AIDS? And if you were the CEO of a company that temporarily enjoyed
a monopolistic position in the marketplace, would you concentrate on maximizing profits for the
benefit of shareholders, or would social goals (the benefit of consumers) be your driving force?
The reality of the marketplace is that a CEO who chooses the latter course will be quickly
replaced by someone who is profit-oriented. Little wonder that U.S. drug prices are high.
165
CHAPTER-6 ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Rules and regulation implemented by Government
In the beginning of the current century Drug Industry was practically non-existent in India and
pharmaceuticals were being important from abroad. The first world war changed the situation
and not only were finished and cheap drugs imported in increasing volume, the demand for
indigenous products also was voiced from all sides. With the clamour for swadeshi goods
manufacturing concerns, both Indian and Foreign, sprang up to produce pharmaceuticals at
cheaper rates to compete with imported products. Naturally some of these were of inferior
quality and harmful for public health. The Government was, therefore, called upon to take notice
of the situation and consider the matter of introducing legislation to control the manufacture,
distribution and sale of drugs and medicines.
Two of the laws, The Poisons Act and the Dangerous Drugs Act were passed in 1919 and 1930
respectively. The Opium Act was quite old having being adopted as early as 1878. But to have a
comprehensive legislation, which the rapid expansion of the pharmaceutical production and drug
market required by the end of the second decade for its control, the Indian Government
appointed, in 1931, a Drugs Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship Lt. Col. R. N. Chopra
which was asked to make sifting enquiries into the whole matter of drug production, distribution
and sale by inviting opinions and meeting concerned people. The Committee was asked to make
recommendations about the ways and means of controlling the production and sale of drugs and
pharmaceuticals in the interest of public health. The Chopra Committee toured all over the
country and after carefully examining the data placed before it, submitted a voluminous report to
government suggesting creation of drug control machinery at the centre with branches in all
provinces. For an efficient and speedy working of the controlling department the committee also
recommended the establishment of a well-equipped Central Drugs Laboratory with competent
staff and experts in various branches for data standardization work. Under the guidance of the
Central Laboratory, it was suggested, small laboratories would work, in the provinces. For the
training of young men and women, the Committee recommended the permission of Central
Pharmacy Council, and the Provincial Pharmacy Councils, with registrars who would maintain
the lists containing names and addresses of the licensed pharmacists.
166
The outbreak of the second world war in 1939 delayed the introduction of legislation on the lines
suggested by the Chopra Committee which the Indian government contemplated and considered
as urgent. However, the Drugs Act was passed in 1940 partly implementing the Chopra
recommendations. With the achievement of independence in 1947 the rest of the required laws
were put on the Statute Book. In 1985, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was
enacted repealing the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930 and the Opium Act of 1878.
At present the following Acts and Rules made there under that govern the manufacture, sale,
import, export and clinical research of drugs and cosmetics in India.
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
The Pharmacy Act, 1948
The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
The Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1956
The Drugs (Prices Control) Order 1995 (under the Essential Commodities Act)
There are some other laws which have a bearing on pharmaceutical manufacture, distribution and
sale in India. The important ones being:
The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
The Indian Patent and Design Act, 1970
Factories Act
1. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940
The object of the Act is to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs.
Under the provisions of this Act, the Central Government appoints the Drugs Technical Advisory
Board to advise the Central Government and the State Governments on technical matters arising
out of the administration of this Act. The board can constitute subcommittees for the
consideration of a particular matter.
2. The Pharmacy Act 1948
The Pharmacy Act was passed in 1948 and was amended in 1959, 1976 and 1984.
The aim of this law is to regulate the profession of Pharmacy in India. Under the provisions of
167
this act the Central Government constitutes a Central Pharmacy Council of India consisting of
following members:
a) Six members from the Teachers of pharmacy.
b) Six members from practicing pharmacists or Pharmaceutical Chemists holding degree of
diploma.
c) One member elected by the Medical Council of India.
d) The Director-General of Health Services.
e) The Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory.
f) The Chief Chemist, Central Revenues.
g) One member to represent each state elected by members of State Councils who shall be a
registered pharmacist.
h) One member to represent each State Government who shall be either registered medical
practitioner or a registered pharmacist.
The President and Vice-President of the Central Council of Pharmacy are elected by the
members of the Council among themselves, hold office for five years and are eligible for re-
election.
The conducting of courses of study for pharmacists, and the examinations in Pharmacy in the
states are subject to the approval of the Central Council. Besides the Council has the
responsibility to supervise the Education of Pharmacy in the States. Where it is found that the
course of study is not in conformity with the Education Regulations, the Council may withdraw
approval accorded to the course or the examination. The Central Council can approve
qualifications granted by an outside authority for qualifying for registration under this Act.
State Pharmacy Councils
The Act makes it incumbent upon the State Governments to constitute State Pharmacy Councils
with the following members:
a) Six members elected from amongst themselves by registered Pharmacists of the state.
b) Five members of whom at least two shall be persons possessing a prescribed degree or
diploma in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or members of the Pharmaceutical profession
nominated by the State Government.
c) One member elected by the State Medical Council.
d) The Chief Medical Officer of the State.
168
e) The State Drug Controller.
f) The Government Analyst.
Registration of Pharmacist
The State Government has under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act to get a register of the State
Pharmacists prepared and it is the State Pharmacy Council which has to maintain the register.
The register shall contain the name and residential address of Pharmacist, the date of his first
admission to the register, qualifications for registration, his professional address, the name of his
employer and prescribed particulars.
2. The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954
This Act is meant to control the Advertisements regarding drugs; it prohibits the advertising of
remedies alleged to possess magic qualities and to provide for matters connected therewith.
The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act prohibits a person from taking part in publication of any
advertisement referring to any drug which suggests use of the drug for:
a) the procurement of miscarriage in women or prevention of conception in women; and
b) the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure;
c)the correction of menstrual disorders in women;
d) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any venereal disease. It is prohibited
to directly or indirectly give a false impression regarding the true character of a drug or make
false claim for it or to convey any false or misleading information in any material particular
about it. No person shall import into or export from India any document containing
advertisement of this nature.
Whoever contravenes the provisions of this Act shall, on conviction, be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to six months, with or without fine. In case of subsequent
convictions the imprisonment can be extended to one year. The document, article or thing which
contains the offending advertisement can be seized and confiscated.
If the person contravening any of the provisions of the Act is a company, every person who at
the time the offence was committed was in charge of the business of the company shall be
deemed guilty.
The prohibition under this Act does not apply to: a) any signboard or notice displayed by a
registered medical practitioner including the treatment for any of the disease, b) any treaties or
book dealing with any of the matters from a bonafide scientific standpoint, c) any advertisement
169
related to any drug sent confidentially to any registered medical practitioners or to chemists for
distribution among registered medical practitioners or to a hospital or laboratory, and d)
Government advertisements.
3. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
This is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Narcotic Drugs, to make stringent
provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith.
Disclosure of the name of the manufacturer – Every person, not being the manufacturer of a
drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the
Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug
or cosmetic.
Maintenance of records and furnishing of information.— Every person holding a license
under clause (c) of section 18 shall keep and maintain such records, registers and other
documents as may be prescribed and shall furnish to any officer or authority exercising any
power or discharging any function under this Act such information as is required by such officer
or authority for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
Pleas – (1) Save as hereinafter provided in this section, it shall be no defense in a prosecution
under this Chapter to prove merely that the accused was ignorant of the nature, substance or
quality of the drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.15 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] in
respect of which the offence has been committed or of the circumstances of its manufacture or
import, or that a purchaser, having bought only for the purpose of test or analysis, has not been
prejudiced by the sale.
(2) For the purposes of section 18 a drug shall not be deemed to be misbranded or [(Note: Subs.
by Act 68 of 1982, sec.16, for "adulterated" (w.e.f. 1-2-1983) adulterated or spurious] or to be
below standard quality nor shall a cosmetic be deemed to be misbranded or to be below standard
quality] only by reason of the fact that –
170
(a) There has been added thereto some innocuous substance or ingredient because the same is
required for the manufacture or preparation of the drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.15
(w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or
consumption, and not to increase the bulk, weight or measure of the drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21
of 1962, sec.15 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] or to conceal its inferior quality or other
defects ; or(Clauses inserted by Act 11 of 1955, sec.10, omitted by Act 13 of 1964, sec. 15
(w.e.f. 15-9-1964))
(b) In the process of manufacture, preparation or conveyance some extraneous substance has
unavoidably become intermixed with it; provided that this clause shall not apply in relation to
any sale or distribution of the drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.15 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or
cosmetic] occurring after the vendor or distributor became aware of such intermixture.
(3) (Note: Subs. by Act 13 of 1964, sec.15, for sub-section (3) (w.e.f. 15-9-1964)) A person, not
being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be
liable for a contravention of section 18 if he proves –
(a) That he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer
thereof ;
(b) That he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the drug
or cosmetic in any way contravened and remained in the same state as when he acquired it.
COMMENTS
All that the prosecution is required to prove in order to establish the contravention of section 18
is the fact that the accused had sold or exhibited for sale the drug which was not of standard
quality or which was a misbranded drug. If the accused want to get rid of the effect of the effect
of the prosecution evidence then it is for them to establish the defenses which are available to
them under sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Act; Public Prosecutor v. Hatambhai, AIR 1969
AP 99.
171
Government Analysts. –
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it
thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Government Analysts for such areas in the
State and in respect of such drugs or [(Note: Subs. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.16, for "class of drugs"
(w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) classes of drugs or such cosmetics or classes of cosmetics] as may be
specified in the notification.
(2) The Central Government may also, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such
persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Government Analysts in
respect of such drugs or [(Note: Subs. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.16, for "class of drugs" (w.e.f. 27-
7-1964)) classes of drugs or such cosmetics or classes of cosmetics] as may be specified in the
notification.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), neither the Central
Government nor a State Government shall appoint as a Government Analyst any official not
serving under it without the previous consent of the Government under which he is serving.
(4) No person who has any financial interest in the import, manufacture or sale of drugs or
cosmetics shall be appointed to be a Government Analyst under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) of this section.
THE DRUGS AND COSMETICS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2008
1. (1) This Act may be called the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, 2008.
(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, appoint:
Provided that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any
reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be constructed as a
reference to the commencement of that provision.
2. After section 17D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (herdeinafter referred to as the
principal Act), the following section shall be inserted, namely,—
"17E. For the purposes of this Chapter, a costmetic shall be deemed to be adulterated,
172
(a) If it consists in whole or in part, of any filthy, putrid or decomposed substance; or
(b) if it has been prepared, packed or stored under insanitary conditions whereby it may have
been contaminated with filth or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health; or
(c) if its container is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance
which may render the contents injurious to health; or
(d) if it bears or contains, for purposes of coloring only, a colour other than one which is
prescribed; or
(e) if it contains any harmful or toxic substance which may render it injurious to health; or
(f) if any substance has been mixed therewith so as to reduce its quality or strength.".
3. In section 18 of the principal Act, in clause (a) , for sub-clause (ii), the following sub clause
shall be substituted, namely,—
"(ii) any cosmetic which is not a standard quality, or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious;".
4. In section 26A of the principal Act, for the word "prohibit", the words "regulate, restrict or
prohibit" shall be substituted.
5. After section 26A of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely,—
"26B. Without prejudice to any other provision contained in this Chapter, if the Central
Government is satisfied that a drug is essential to meet the requirements of an emergency arising
due to epidemic or natural calamities and that in the public interest, it is necessary or expedient
so to do, then, that Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, regulate or restrict
the manufacture, sale or distribution of such drug.".
6. In section 27 of the principal Act,—
(A) for the figures, alphabet and the letter "17B or which" the figures, alphabet and the letter
"17B and which".
(i) in clause (a),—
(B) for the words "punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not less than five years
but which may extend to a term of life and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand
rupees;", the words "punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall
not be less than ten lakh rupees or three times value of the drugs confiscated, which-ever is
more:" shall be substituted;
(C) the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:—
173
"Provided that the fine imposed on and released from the person convicted under this clause shall
be paid, by way of compensation, to the person who had used the adulterated or spurious drugs
referred to in this clause:
Provided further that where the use of the adulterated or spurious drugs referred to in this clause
has caused the death of a person who used such drugs, the fine imposed on and realized from the
person convicted under this clause, shall be paid to the relative of the person who had died due to
the use of the adulterated or spurious drugs referred to in this clause.
Explanation.—For the purposes of the second proviso, the expression
"relative" means—
(i) spouse of the deceased person; or
(ii) a minor legitimate son, and unmarried legitimate daughter and a
widowed mother; or
(iii) parent of the minor victim; or
(iv) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased person at the time of his death, a son or
a daughter who has attained the age of eighteen years; or
(v) any person, if wholly or in part, dependent on the earnings of the deceased person at the time
of his death,—
(a) the parent; or
(b) a minor brother or an unmarried sister; or
(c) a widowed daughter-in-law; or
(d) a widowed sister; or
(e) a minor child of a pre-deceased son; or
(f) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive; or
(g) the paternal grandparent if no parent of the member is alive;";
(ii) in clause (b),—
(A) for the words "not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine
which shall not be less than five thousand rupees", the words "not be less than three years but
which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or
three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more" shall be substituted;
174
(B) in the proviso, for the words "less than one year and of fine of less than five thousand
rupees", the words "less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees" shall be
substituted;
(iii) in clause (c),—
(A) for the words "not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine
which shall not less than five thousand rupees", the words "not less than seven years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life and with fine which shall not be three lakh rupees or three
times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more" shall be submitted;
(B) in the proviso, for the words "less than three years but not less than one year", the words
"less than seven years but not less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees" shall
be submitted;
(iv) in clause (d), for the words "and with fine", the words "and with fine which shall not be less
than twenty thousand rupees" shall be submitted.
7. In section 27A of the principal Act, for clauses (i) and (ii), the following clauses shall
be substituted, namely,—
(i) any cosmetic deemed to be spurious under section 17D or adulterated under section 17E shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which
shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees or three times the value of the cosmetics confiscated,
whichever is more.
(ii) any cosmetic other than a cosmetic referred to in clause (i) in contravention of any provisions
of this Chapter or any rule made there under shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with
both.".
8. In section 28 of the principal Act, for the words "with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees or with both", the words "with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees or
with both" shall be substituted.
9. In section 28A of the principal Act, for the words "with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees or with both", the words "with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand
rupees or with both" shall be substituted.
10. In section 29 of the principal Act, for the words, "five hundred rupees", the words "five
thousand rupees" shall be substituted.".
175
11. In section 30 of the principal Act,—
(a) in sub-section (1),—
(i) in clause (a),—
(A) for the words "not be less than two years but which may extend to six years and with fine
which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees", the words "not be less than seven years but
which may extend to ten years and with fine-which shall not be less than two lakh rupees" shall
be substituted;
(B) in the proviso, for the words "less than two years and of fine of less than ten thousand
rupees", the words "less than seven years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees" shall be
substituted.
(ii) in clause (b), for the words "shall not be less than six years but which may extend to ten years
and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees", the words "shall not be less than
ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and with fine which shall not be less
than three lakh rupees" shall be substituted;
(iii) in clause (c), for the words "five thousand rupees", the words "fifty thousand rupees" shall
be substituted.
(b) in sub-section (2), for the words "ten years, or with fine, or with both", the words "two years,
or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees or with both" shall be substituted.
12. In section 32 of the principal Act, for sub-sections (1) and (2), the following subsections
shall be substituted, namely:—
‘‘(1) No prosecution under this Chapter shall be instituted except by—
(a) an Inspector; or
(b) any gazetted officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized in writing
in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government by a general or special order
made in this behalf by that Government; or
(c) the person aggrieved; or
13. After section 32A of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:—
"32B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any
offence punishable under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13, section 28 and section 28A
of this Act (whether committed by a company or any officer thereof), not being an offence
punishable with imprisonment only, or with imprisonment and also with fine, may, either before
176
or after the institution of any prosecution, be compounded by the Central Government or by any
State Government or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or a State
Government, on payment for credit to that Government of such sum as that Government may, by
rules made in this behalf, specify:
Provided that such sum shall not, in any case, exceed the maximum amount of the fine which
may be imposed under this Act for the offence so compounded:
Provided further that in cases of subsequent offences, the same shall not be compoundable.
(2) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal
is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the court to
which he is committed or as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.
(3) Where an offence is compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding,
as the case may be, shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded
and the offender, if in custody, shall be released forthwith.".
14. In section 33 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2),—
(i) after clause (dd), the following clause shall be inserted, namely,—
"(dda) prescribe under clause (d) of section 17E the colour or colours which a cosmetic may bear
or contain for the purposes of coloring;’’;
(ii) in clause (p), the word "and" occurring at the end shall be omitted;
(iii) in clause (q), the word "and'' shall be inserted at the end;
(iv) after clause (q), the following clause shall be inserted, namely,—
"(r) sum which may be specified by the Central Government under section 32B.".
15. In section 33-I of the principal Act,—
(a) in sub-section (1),—
(i) for clause (a), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
"(a) any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug—
(i) deemed to be misbranded under section 33E,
(ii) deemed to be adulterated under section 33EE, or
(iii) without a valid license or in violation of any of the conditions thereof, as required under
section 33 EEC, or shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year and with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees or three times the value of
the drugs confiscated, whichever is more;";
177
(ii) in clause (b), for the words "five thousand rupees", occurring at both the places, the words
"fifty thousand rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more" shall
be substituted;
(iii) after clause (b), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:—
"(c) any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug in contravention of the provisions of any notification
issued under section 33EED shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or three times the
value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more.";
(b) in sub-section (2) for the words "three months and with fine which shall not be less than five
hundred rupees", the words "six months and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand
rupees" shall be substituted.
16. In section 33J of the principal Act,—
(a) in clause (a), for the words "two thousand rupees", the words "fifty thousand rupees or three
times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more" shall be substituted;
(b) in clause (b), for the words "five thousand rupees" occurring at both the places, the words
"one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more" shall be
substituted;
(c) in clause (c), for the words "six months and with fine which shall not be less than one
thousand rupees", the words "one year and with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand
rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more" shall be substituted.
17. After section 33K of the principal Act, the following sections shall be inserted, namely,—
"33KA. Every person, not being the manufacturer of any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug or his
agent for the distribution thereof, shall if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address
and other particulars of the person from whom he acquire the Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug.
33KB. Every person, holding a license under clause (c) of section 33EEC shall keep and
maintain such records, registers and other documents as many be prescribed and shall furnish to
any officer or authority exercising any power or discharging any function under this Act such
information as is required by such officer or authority for carrying out the purposes of this Act."
18. In section 33N of the principal Act, in sub-section (2),—
‘‘(i) in clause (gga), the word "and" occurring at the end shall be committed;
(ii) after clause (gga), the following clause shall be inserted, namely,—
178
(ggb) prescribe the records, registers or other documents to be kept and maintained under section
33KB; and.’’
19. In section 36A of the principal Act, for the words "all offences under this Act", the words,
brackets, figures and letters "all offences (except the offences triable by the Special Court under
section 36AB or Court of Session) under this Act" shall be substituted.
20. After section 36A of the principal Act, the following sections shall be inserted, namely:—
"36AB. (l) The Central Government, or the State Government, in consultation with the Chief
Justice of the High Court, shall, for trial of offences relating to adulterated drugs or spurious
drugs and punishable under clauses (a) and (b) of section 13, subsection (3) of section 22,
clauses (a) and (c) of section 27, section 28, section 28A, section 28B and clause (b) of sub-
section (I) of section 30 and other offences relating to adulterated drugs or spurious drugs, by
notification, designate one or more Courts of Session as a Special Court or Special Courts for
such area or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be specified in the
notification.
Explanation.—In this sub-section, "High Court" means the High Court of the State in which a
Court of Session designated as Special Court was functioning immediately before such
designation.
(2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence, other than
an offence referred to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may, under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial.
36AC. (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,—
(a) every offence, relating to adulterated or spurious drug and punishable under clauses (a) and
(c) of sub-section (1) of section 13, clause (a) of subsection
(2) of section 13, sub-section (3) of section 22, clause (a) and (c) of section 27, section 28,
section 28A, section 28B and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 30 and other offences relating to
adulterated drugs or spurious drugs, shall be cognizable.
(b) no person accused, of an offence punishable under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of
section 13, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 13, subsection
(3) of section 22, clauses (a) and (c) of section 27, section 28, section 28A, section 28B and sub-
sections (1) and (2) of section 30 and other offences relating to adulterated drugs or spurious
drugs, shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
179
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such
release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm,
may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs.
(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) is in addition to
the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in
force on granting of bail.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High
Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 and the High
Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section includes
also a reference to a "Special Court" designated under section 36AB.
36AD. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (including the provisions as to bails or bonds), shall apply to the proceedings
before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be
deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting the prosecution before the Special
Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor:
Provided that the Central Government or the State Government may also appoint, for any case or
class or group of cases, a Special Public Prosecutor.
(2) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public
Prosecutor under this section unless he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven
years, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law.
(3) Every person appointed as a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor under this
section shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the provisions of that Code shall have effect
accordingly.
36AE. The High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by
Chapter XXIX or Chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on a High Court, as if
180
a Special Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of
Session trying cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court.'.
THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985
Short title, extent and commencement.-
(1) This Act may be called the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
(2) It extends to the whole of India
[and it applies also-(a) to all citizens of India outside India; (b) to all persons on ships and
aircrafts registered in India. Wherever they may be.]
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this
Act and for different States and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this
Act shall be construed in relation to any State as a reference to the coming into force of that
provision in that State.
This is a special Act, while adopting the liberal construction of the Act, it is found that the Act
has been enacted with a view to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of
operations relating to the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; Gulam Mohiuddin v. State
ofJammu and Kashmir, (1994) 1 Crimes 204 (J & K).
Definitions.-
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
[(i) "addict" means a person who has dependence on any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substances;]
(ii) "Board" means the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central
Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963);
(iii) "cannabis (hemp)" means-
(a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained
from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish
oil or liquid hashish.
(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and
leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated;
and
181
(c) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or
any drink prepared there from.
(iv) "cannabis plant" means any plant of the genus cannabis
(v) "coca derivative' means
(a) crude cocaine, that is, any extract of coca leaf which can be used, directly or indirectly, for
the manufacture of cocaine
(b) ecgonine and all the derivatives of ecgonine from which it can be recovered
(c) cocaine, that is, methyl ester of benzoyl-ecgonine and its salts and
(d) all preparations containing more than 0.1 percent of cocaine
(vi) "coca leaf" means
(a) the leaf of the coca plant except of a leaf from which all ecgonine, cocaine and any other
ecgonine alkaloids have been removed
(b) any mixture thereof with or without any neutral material; but does not include any
preparation containing not more than 0.1 per cent. of cocaine;
(vii) "coca plant" means the plant of any species of the genus Erythroxylon;
[(viia) "commercial quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means
any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the
Official Gazette;
(viib) "controlled delivery" means the technique of allowing illicit or suspect consignments of
narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or substances substituted for them
to pass out of, or through or into the territory of India with the knowledge and under the
supervision of an officer empowered in this behalf or duly authorized under section 50A with a
view to identifying the persons involved in the commission of an offence under this Act
(viic) "corresponding law" means any law corresponding to the provisions of this Act;
[(viid) "controlled substance" means any substance which the Central Government may, having
regard to the available information as to its possible use in the production or manufacture of
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or to the provisions of any International Convention,
by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a controlled substance;]
(viii) "conveyance" means a conveyance of any description whatsoever and includes any aircraft,
vehicle or vessel;
[(viiia) "illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means
182
(i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant;
(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;
(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation,
warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import
into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances;
(iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those
referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or
(v) handling or letting out any premises for the carrying on of any of the activities referred to in
sub-clauses (i) to (iv); other than those permitted under this Act, or any rule or order made, or
any condition of any license, term or authorization issued, there under, and includes
(1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned activities
(2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of doing any of the aforementioned
activities and
(3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the aforementioned activities
(ix)"International Convention" means
(a) the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 adopted by the United Nations Conference at
New York in March, 1961
(b) the protocol, amending the Convention mentioned in sub-clause (a),adopted by the United
Nations Conference at Geneva in March, 1972
(c) the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 adopted by the United Nations Conference
at Vienna in February, 1971 and
(d) any other international convention, or protocol or other instrument amending an international
convention, relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which may be ratified or
acceded to by India after the commencement of this Act
(x) "manufacture", in relation to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, includes
(1) all processes other than production by which such drugs or substances may be obtained
(2) refining of such drugs or substances
(3) transformation of such drugs or substances and
(4) making of preparation (otherwise than in a pharmacy on prescription) with or containing such
drugs or substances
(xi) "manufactured drug" means
183
(a) all coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and poppy straw concentrate;
(b) any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having
regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International
Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug; but does
not include any narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having
regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International
Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare not to be a manufactured drug;
(xii) "medicinal cannabis", that is, medicinal hemp, means any extract or tincture of cannabis
(hemp);
(xiii) "Narcotic Commissioner" means the Narcotics Commissioner appointed under section
(xiv) "narcotic drug" means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all
manufactured goods;
(xv) "opium" means
(a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and
(b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium
poppy, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine:
(xvi) "opium derivative" means
(a) medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the processes necessary to adapt it for
medicinal use in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Pharmacopoeia or any other
pharmacopoeia notified in this behalf by the Central Government, whether in powder form or
granulated or otherwise or mixed with neutral materials;
(b) prepared opium, that is, any product of opium by any series of operations designed to
transform opium into an extract suitable for smoking and the dross or other residue remaining
after opium is smoked;
(c) phenanthrene alkaloids, namely, morphine, codeine, thebaine and their salts;
(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia morphine or heroin and its salts; and
(e) all preparations containing more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine or containing any
diacetylmorphine;
(xvii) "opium poppy" means
(a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.; and
184
(b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can
be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act;
(xviii) "poppy straw" means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after
(xix) harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not
juice has been extracted there from;
(xix) "poppy straw concentrate" means the material arising when poppy straw has entered into a
process for the concentration of its alkaloids;
(xx) "preparation", in relation to a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, means anyone or
more such drugs or substances in dosage form or any solution or mixture, in whatever physical
state, containing one or more such drugs or substances;
(xx) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(xxi) "production" means the separation of opium, poppy straw, coca leaves or cannabis from the
plants from which they are obtained:
(xxiii) "psychotropic substance" means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural
material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of
psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule;
[(xxiiia) "small quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any
quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.]
(xxiv) 'to import inter-State" means to bring into a State or Union territory in India from another
State or Union territory in India;
(xxv) "to import into India", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means to
bring into India from a place outside India and includes the bringing into any port or airport or
place in India of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance intended to be taken out of India
without being removed from the vessel, aircraft, vehicle or any other conveyance in which it is
being carried.
(xxvi) "to export from India", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means to
take out of India to a place outside India;
(xxvii) "to export inter-State" means to take out of a State or Union territory in India to another
State or Union territory in India;
185
(xxviii) "to transport" means to take from one place to another within the same State or Union
territory;
[(xxviiia) "use", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any kind of use
except personal consumption;]
(xxix) words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code.
Explanation.-For the purposes of clauses (v), (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of
liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent of a
substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one milliliter of
substance, if liquid, is contained in everyone hundred milliliter of the preparation and so on in
proportion for any greater or less percentage:
Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of
methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis,
which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.
COMMENTS
(i) A person, who assists a narcotics trafficker in concealing the narcotics in his apartment so that
the trafficker may avoid detection, is involved in illicit traffic; R. v. Jackson, (1977) 35 CCC (2d)
331.
(ii) It may be noted that clause (iv) of section 2 (viiia) is independent of other clauses and is in
the nature of a residuary provision. It would include an activity of distribution; R. Parkash v.
State of Karnataka, (1980) Cr LJ 165.
(iii) The definition of the term 'manufacture' as contained in section. 2(x) is .an inclusive one.
where the definition is an inclusive definition, the word not only bears its ordinary, popular and
natural sense whenever that would be applicable but it also bears its extended statutory meaning;
S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain, AIR 1979 SC 734.
(iv) Heroin being an opium is manufactured drug; I.Paul Kuki v. State of West Bengal,(1993) 3
Crimes 660 (Cal) (DB).
(v) It is true that opium is substance, which once seen and smelt can never be forgotten because
opium possesses a characteristic appearance and a very strong and characteristic scent. It is
possible for people to identify opium without having to subject the product to a chemical
analysis. It is only when opium is in a mixture so diluted that its essential characteristics are not
186
easily visible or capable of being apprehended by the senses that a chemical analysis may be
necessary; Baidyanath Mishra v. State of Orissa,(1967) SCD 1165: 34 Cut LT 1.
3. Power to add to or omit from the list of psychotropic substances.- The Central
Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do on the basis of
(a) the information and evidence which has become available to it with respect to the nature and
effects of, and the abuse or the scope for abuse of, any substance (natural or synthetic) or natural
material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material; and
(b) the modifications or provisions (if any) which have been made to, or in any International
Convention with respect to such substance, natural material or salt or preparation of such
substance or material.
By notification in the Official Gazette, add to, or, as the case may be, omit from, the list of
psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule such substance or natural material or salt or
preparation of such substance or material.
AUTHORITIES AND OFFICERS
Central Government to take measures for preventing and combating abuse of and
illicit traffic in narcotic drugs,etc.-
(l) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Central Government shall take all such measures as it
deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of preventing and combating abuse of narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances and the illicit traffic therein.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (I), the
measures which the Central Government may take under the sub-section include measures with
respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:
(a) coordination of actions by various officers, State Governments and other authorities
(i) under this Act, or
(ii) under any other law for the time being in force in connection with the enforcement of the
provisions of this Act;
(b) obligations under the International Conventions;
(c) assistance to the concerned authorities in foreign countries and concerned international
organizations with a view to facilitating coordination and universal action for prevention and
suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances;
187
(d) identification, treatment, education, after care, rehabilitation and social re-integration of
addicts;
(e) such other matters as, the Central Government deems necessary or expedient for the purpose
of securing the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act and preventing and
combating the abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and illicit traffic therein.
(3) The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the
purposes of this Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette, constitute an authority or a
hierarchy of authorities by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose
of exercising such of the powers and functions of the Central Government under this Act and for
taking measures with respect to such of the matters referred to in sub-section (2) as may be
mentioned in the order, and subject to the supervision and control of the Central Government and
the provisions of such order, such authority or authorities may exercise the powers and take the
measures so mentioned in. the order as if such authority or authorities had been empowered by
this Act to exercise those powers and take such measures.
COMMENTS
Section 4(1) of the Act does not create the Narcotics Control Bureau. It only authorizes the
Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose
of preventing and combating abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the illicit
traffic therein; State v. Kulwant Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1599.
Officers of Central Government.-
(l) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 4, the Central Government
shall appoint a Narcotics Commissioner and may also appoint such other officers with such
designations as it thinks fit for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Narcotics Commissioner shall, either by himself or through officers subordinate to him,
exercise all powers and perform all functions relating to the superintendence of the cultivation of
the opium poppy and production of opium and shall also exercise and perform such other powers
and functions as may be entrusted to him by the Central Government.
(3) The officers appointed under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the general control and
direction of the Central Government, or, if so directed by that Government, also of the Board or
any other authority or officer.
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Consultative Committee.-
188
(l) The Central Government may constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, an advisory
committee to be called "The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Consultative
Committee" (hereafter in this section referred to as the Committee) to advise the Central
Government on such matters relating to the administration of this Act as are referred to it by that
Government from time to time.
(2) The Committee shall consist of a Chairman and such other members, not exceeding twenty,
as may be appointed by the Central Government.
(3) The Committee shall meet when required to do so by the Central Government and shall have
power to regulate its own procedure.
(4) The Committee may, if it deems it necessary so to do for the efficient discharge of any of its
functions constitute one or more sub-committees and may appoint to any such sub-committee,
whether generally or for the consideration of any particular matter any person (including a
nonofficial) who is not a member of the Committee.
(5) The term of office of, the manner of filling casual vacancies in the offices of and the
allowances, if any, payable to, the Chairman and other members of the Committee, and the
conditions and restrictions subject to which the Committee may appoint a person who is not a
member of the Committee as a member of any of its sub-committees, shall be such as may be
prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.
Officers of State Government.-
(l) The State Government may appoint such officers with such designations as it thinks fit for the
purposes of this Act.
(2) The officers appointed under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the general control and
direction of the State Government, or, if so directed by that Government also of any other
authority or officer.
NATIONAL FUND FOR CONTROL OF DRUG ABUSE
National Fund for Control of Drug Abuse. –
(l) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Fund to be
called the National Fund for Control of Drug Abuse (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the
Fund) and there shall be credited thereto-
189
(a) an amount which the Central Government may, after due appropriation made by Parliament
by law in this behalf, provide;
(b) the sale proceeds of any property forfeited under Chapter V A;
(c) any grants that may be made by any person or institution;
(d) any income from investment of the amounts credited to the Fund under the aforesaid
provisions.
(2) The Fund shall be applied by the Central Government to meet the expenditure incurred in
connection with the measures taken for
(a) Combating illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances;
(b) Controlling the abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances;
(c) identifying, treating, rehabilitating addicts;
(d) Preventing drug abuse;
(e) Educating public against drug abuse;
(f) supplying drugs to addicts where such supply is a medical necessity.
(3) The Central Government may constitute a Governing Body as it thinks fit to advise that
Government and to sanction money out of the said Fund subject to the limit notified by the
Central Government in the Official Gazette.]
(4) The Governing Body shall consist of a Chairman (not below the rank of an Additional
Secretary to the Central Government) and such other members not exceeding six as the Central
Government may appoint.
(5) The Governing Body shall have the power to regulate its own procedure.
Prohibited activities defined by the court and Government
Offences by companies – (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a
company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the
190
company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to
any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without
his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has
been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager,
secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall
also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this section –
(a) "company" means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of
individuals ; and
(b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
Offences by Government Departments – Where an offence under Chapter IV or Chapter IVA
has been committed by any department of Government, such authority as is specified by the
Central Government to be in charge of manufacture, sale or distribution of drugs or where no
authority is specified, the head of the department, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly :
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render any such authority or person
liable to any punishment provided in Chapter IV or Chapter IVA, as the case may be, if
such authority or person proves that the offence was committed without its or his
knowledge or that such authority or person exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence.
191
Penalty for vexatious search or seizure — Any Inspector exercising powers under this Act or
the rules made there under, who,-
(a) Without reasonable ground of suspicion searches any place, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance, or
(b) Vexatiously and unnecessarily searches any person, or
(c) Vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes any drug or cosmetic, or any substance or article, or any
record, register, document or other material object, or
(d) Commits, as such Inspector, any other act, to the injury of any person without having reason
to believe that such act is required for the execution of his duty shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees.
Magistrate’s power to impose enhanced penalties – Notwithstanding anything contained in
(Note: The words and figures "section 32 of" omitted by Act 13 of 1964, sec.29 (w.e.f. 15-9-
1964)) [(Note: Subs. by Act 68 of 1982, sec.38, for "the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898"
(w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973], it shall be lawful for [(Note: Subs. by
Act 68 of 1982, sec.38, for "any Presidency Magistrate of any Magistrate of the first class"
(w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) any Metropolitan Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate of the first class] to
pass any sentence authorized by this Act excess of his powers under (Note: The words and
figures "section 32 of" omitted by Act 13 of 1964, sec.29 (w.e.f. 15-9-1964)) the said Code.
Certain offences to be tried summarily – Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, all offences under this Act, punishable with imprisonment for a term
not exceeding three years, other than an offence under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section
33I, shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially
empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the
provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply
to such trial :
192
Provided that, in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall
be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year :
Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial
under this section it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a
sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it
is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall, after
hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who
has been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the
said Code.
Prohibition of import of certain drugs or cosmetics – From such date (Note: 1st April, 1947,
for clauses (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) and 1st April, for clause (d), see Notification No. 18-12-46-D-
I, dated 11th February, 1947, Gazette of India, 1947, Gazette of India, 1947 Pt. I.p.189 as
amended by Notification No. F-1-2/48-D(1), dated 29th September, 1948. 1st April, 1953, for
the States of Himachal Pradesh, Bilaspur, Kutch, Bhopal, Tripura, Vindhya Pradesh and Manipur
vide Notification No. S.R.O. 666, dated 30th March, 1953, Gazette of India, 1953, Pt. II. Sec.3,
p.451) as may be fixed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this
behalf, no person shall import –
(a) Any drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.8 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] which
is not of standard quality ;
(b) (Note: Subs. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.8, for clause (b) (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) Any
misbranded drug [(Note: Subs. by Act 68 of 1982, sec.7, for "or misbranded cosmetic"
(w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) or misbranded or spurious cosmetics];]
(c) Any drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.8 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] for
the import of which a license is prescribed, otherwise than under, and in accordance with,
such license ;
(d) (Note: Subs. by act 11 of 1955, sec.5, for clause (d)) Any patent or proprietary
medicine, unless there is displayed in the prescribed manner on the label or container
thereof [(Note: Subs. by Act 68 of 1982, sec.7, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) the
193
true formula or list of active ingredients contained in it together with the quantities
thereof];
(e) Any drug which by means of
Power of Central Government to prohibit import of drugs and cosmetics in public interest
– Without prejudice to any other provision contained in this Chapter, if the Central Government
is satisfied that the use of any drug or cosmetic is likely to involve any risk to human beings or
animals or that any drug does not have the therapeutic value claimed for it or contains
ingredients and in such quantity for which there is no therapeutic justification and that in the
public interest it is necessary or expedient so to do then, that Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, prohibit the import of such drug or cosmetic.
COMMENTS
The Central Government on the basis of the expert advice can indeed adopt an approved
national policy and prescribe an adequate number of formulations which would on the
whole meet the requirement of the people at large. While laying the guidelines on this
score, injurious drugs should be totally eliminated from the market.
Application of law relating to sea customs and powers of Customs Officers –
(1) The Law for the time being in force relating to sea customs and to goods, the import of which
is prohibited by section 18 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Note: Now see the Customs Act,
1962.) shall, subject to the provisions of section 13 of this Act, apply in respect of drugs [(Note:
Ins. by Act 21 of1962, sec.9 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) and cosmetics] the import of which is prohibited
under this Chapter, and officers of Customs and officers empowered under that Act to perform
the duties imposed thereby on a Customs Collector and other officers of Customs, shall have the
same powers in respect of such drugs [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.9 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964))
and cosmetics] as they have for the time being in respect of such goods as aforesaid.
(2) (Note: Subs. by Act 11 of 1955, sec.6, for sub-section (2)) Without prejudice to the
provisions of sub-section (1), the Customs Collector or any officer of the Government authorized
by the Central Government in this behalf, may detain any imported package which he suspects to
194
contain any drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.9 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] the
import of which is prohibited under this Chapter and shall forthwith report such detention to the
Drugs Controller, India, and if necessary, forward the package or sample of any suspected drug
[ (Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.9 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] found therein to the
Central Drugs Laboratory.]
COMMENTS
(i) The tainted goods may be confiscated without proceeding personally against any
person and without coming to a finding as to who was the smuggler; Shermal Jain v.
Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1956 Cal 621.
(ii) Mere unlawful possession of prohibited goods does not lead to conclusion that the
goods had been imported unlawfully. Onus is on the custom authorities to prove the
breach of prohibition order; Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1965 Cal 248:
(1965) 1 Cri LJ 547.
Power of Central Government to make rules –
(1) The Central Government may, [(Note: Subs. by Act 68 of 1982, sec.9, for "after consultation
with the Board" (w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) after consultation with or on the recommendation of the
Board] and after previous publication by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for the
purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Chapter :
Provided that consultation with the Board may be dispensed with if the Central
Government is of opinion that circumstances have arisen which render it necessary to
make rules without such consultation, but in such a case the Board shall be consulted
within six months of the making of the rules and the Central Government shall take into
consideration any suggestions which the Board may make in relation to the amendment
of the said rules.]
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may—
195
(a) Specify the drugs or classes of drugs [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.10 (w.e.f. 27-
7-1964)) or cosmetics or classes of cosmetics] for the import of which a license is
required, [(Note: Subs. by Act 68 of 1982, sec.9, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) and
prescribe the form and conditions of such licences, the authority empowered to issue the
same, the fees payable therefore and provide for the cancellation, or suspension of such
license in any case where any provision of this Chapter or the rules made there under is
contravened or any of the conditions subject to which the license is issued is not
complied with;
(b) Prescribe the methods of test of test or analysis to be employed in determining
whether a drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.10 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] is
of standard quality ;
(c) Prescribe, in respect of biological and organ metallic compounds, the units or methods
of standardization ;
Offences. – (1) Whoever himself or by any other person on his behalf imports, -
(a) Any drug deemed to be adulterated under section 9A or deemed to be a spurious drug
under section 9B or any spurious cosmetic referred to in section 9D or any cosmetic of
the nature referred to in clause (ee) of section 10 shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and a fine which may extend to five thousand
rupees ;
(b) Any drug or cosmetic other than a drug or cosmetic referred to in clause (a), the
import of which is prohibited under section 10, or any rule made under this Chapter, shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both ;
(c) Any drug or cosmetic in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued
under section 10A, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Whoever having been convicted of an offence –
196
(a) Under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), is again convicted of an offence
under that clause, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
five years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both ;
(b) Under clause (b) of sub-section (1), is again convicted of an offence under that clause,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
(3) The punishment provided by this section shall be in addition to any penalty to which
the offender may be liable under the provisions of section 11.
COMMENTS
Oral evidence can be led to prove previous conviction only if the original judgement of
previous conviction has been lost; City Board Saharampur v. Abdul Waheed, AIR 1959
All 695.
Confiscation.— Where any offence punishable under section 13 has been committed, the
consignment of the drugs [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.11 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or
cosmetics] in respect of which the offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation.
Jurisdiction. – No Court inferior to that [(Note: Subs. by Act 68 of 1982, sec.11, for certain
words (w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) of a Metropolitan Magistrate or of a Judicial Magistrate of the first
class] shall try an offence punishable under section 13.
Prohibition of manufacture and sale or certain drugs – From such date as may be fixed by
the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall
himself or by any other person on his behalf-
(a) [(Note: manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, ]
or distribute –
(i) Any drug which is not of a standard quality, or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious ;
(ii) Any cosmetic which is not of a standard quality or is misbranded or spurious ;
197
(iii) Any patent or proprietary medicine, unless there is displayed in the prescribed manner on the
label or container thereof the true formula or list of active ingredients contained in it together
with the quantities, thereof
(iv) Any drug which by means of any statement design or device accompanying it or by any
other means, purports or claims [(Note: Subs. by Act 11 of 1955, sec.9, for "to cure or mitigate")
to prevent, cure or mitigate] any such disease or ailment, or to have any such other effect as may
be prescribed ;
(v) Any cosmetic containing any ingredient, which may render it unsafe or harmful for use under
the directions, indicated or recommended ;
(vi) Any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any rule
made there under ;
(b) Sell or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or distribute any drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 11 of
1955, sec.14 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] which has been imported or manufactured in
contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made there under,
(c) [(Note: Subs. by Act 68 of 1982, sec.14, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) manufacture for
sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or distribute any drug [(Note:
Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.14 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic], except under, and in accordance
with the conditions of, a license issued for such purpose under this Chapter.
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to prescribed
conditions, of small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis ;
Provided further that the [(Note: Subs. by Act 11 of 1955, sec.9, for "State Government") Central
Government] may, after consultation with the Board by notification in the Official Gazette,
permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the [(Note: Subs. by Act 68 of
1982, sec.14 (w.e.f. 1-2-1983)) manufacture for sale or for distribution, sale, stocking or
exhibiting or offering for sale] or distribution of any drug or class of drugs not being of standard
quality.
198
COMMENTS
On a reading of section 18A and sub-section (4) of section 23 together, it is clear that out of the
four portions into which the sample has been divided one portion should be sent to the person, if
any, whose name and address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 18A; In re:
R.Dayalan, 1978 Cri Lj 1852. (1979) 1 FAC 29.
PROHIBITION, CONTROL AND REGULATION OF NARCOTIC DRUGS
Prohibition of certain operations. -No person shall
(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
1. Ins. by Act 2 of 1989, sec. 4 (w.e.f. 29-5-1989).
2. Subs. by Act 9 of 2001, sec. 4, for sub-sections (2) and (3) (w.e.f. 2-10-2001).
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import
inter- State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug
or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the
extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made there under and in a
case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of license, permit or
authorization also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such license, permit or
authorization: Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made
there under, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of
ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing,
import inter- State and export inter-State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and
scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf [Provided further that nothing in this
section shall apply to the export of poppy straw for decorative purposes.]
COMMENTS
(i) There need be no physical connection between the goods and the person charged. A man may
be miles and miles away from the goods and yet if proof is available that he had an interest in or
was concerned in illegal importation of goods he would be guilty of the offence; Addl. Collector
of Customs v. Sitaram Agarwalla, AIR 1962 Cal 242 approved in Radha Kishan v. Union of
India, AIR 1965 SC 1072.
199
(ii) If the person possessing the drugs or substances does not carry himself but entrusts the same
to some other person for carriage in a car, then that person (driver of the car) would be the person
who transports the said drugs and the person who directs him to do so would be the abettor of the
offence of transporting; Narvir Chand v. State, (1952) Cr LJ 246.
(iii) All manufactured drugs are also narcotic drugs, possession of which is prohibited under this
section; T. Paul Kuki v. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 Crimes 660 (Cal) (DB).
[8A. Prohibition of certain activities relating to property derived from offence.-No person
shall
(a) convert or transfer any property knowing that such property is derived from an offence
committed under this Act or under any other corresponding law of any other country or from an
act of participation in such offence, for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin
of the property or to assist any person in the commission of an offence or to evade the legal
consequences; or
(b) conceal or disguise the true nature, source, location, disposition of any property knowing that
such property is derived from an offence committed under this Act or under any other
corresponding law of any other country; or
(c) knowingly acquire, possess or use any property which was derived from an offence
committed under this Act or under any other corresponding law of any other country.]
9 Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate –
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 8, the Central Government may, by rules-
(a) permit and regulate-
(i) the cultivation, or gathering of any portion (such cultivation or gathering being only on
account of the Central Government) of coca plant, or the production, possession, sale, purchase,
transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, use or consumption of coca leaves;
(ii) the cultivation (such cultivation being only on account of Central Government) of the opium
poppy;
(iii) the production and manufacture of opium and production of poppy straw;
(iv) the sale of opium and opium derivatives from the Central Government factories for export
from India or sale to State Government or to manufacturing chemists;
200
(v) the manufacture of manufactured drugs (other, than prepared opium) but not including
manufacture of medicinal opium or any preparation containing any manufactured drug from
materials which the maker is lawfully entitled to possess;
(vi) the manufacture, possession, transport import inter-State, export inter-State, sale, purchase,
consumption or use of psychotropic substances;
(vii) the import into India and export from India and transhipment of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances;
(b) prescribe any other matter requisite to render effective the control of the Central Government
over any of the matters specified in clause (a).
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power , such rules may
(a) empower the Central Government to fix from time to time the limits within which licences
may be given for the cultivation of the opium poppy;
(b) require that all opium, the produce of land cultivated with the opium poppy, shall be
delivered by the cultivators to the officers authorized in this behalf by the Central Government;
(c) prescribe the forms and conditions of licences for cultivation of the opium poppy and for
production and manufacture of opium; the fees that may be charged therefore; the authorities by
which such licences may be granted, withheld, refused or cancelled and the authorities before
which appeals against the orders of withholding, refusal or cancellation of licences shall lie;
(d) prescribe that opium shall be weighed, examined and classified according to its quality and
consistence by the officers authorized in this behalf by the Central Government in the presence
of the cultivator at the time of delivery by the cultivator;
(e) empower the Central Government to fix from time to time the price to be paid to the
cultivators for the opium delivered;
(f) provide for the weighment, examination and classification, according to the quality and
consistence, of the opium received at the factory and the deductions from or additions (if any) to
the standard price to be made in accordance with the result of such examination; and the
authorities by which the decisions with regard to the weighment, examination, classification,
deductions or additions shall be made and the authorities before which appeals against such
decisions shall lie;
201
(g) require that opium delivered by a cultivator, if found as a result of examination in the Central
Government factory to be adulterated, may be confiscated by the officers authorized in this
behalf;
(h) prescribe the forms and conditions of licences for the manufacture of manufactured drugs, the
authorities by which such licences may be granted and the fees may be charged therefore;
(i) prescribe the forms and conditions of licences or permits for the manufacture, possession,
transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sale, purchase, consumption or use of
psychotropic substances, the authorities by which such licences or permits may be granted and
the fees that may be charged therefore;
(j) prescribe the ports and other places at which any kind of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances may be imported into India or exported from India or transshipped ; the forms and
conditions of certificates, authorizations or permits, as the case may be, for such import, export
or transhipment; the authorities by which such certificates, authorizations or permits may be
granted and the fees that may be charged therefore.
[9A. Power to control and regulate controlled substances.-
(1) If the Central Government is of the opinion that, having regard to the use of any controlled
substance in the production or manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, it is
necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, by order, provide for regulating or
prohibiting the production, manufacture, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce
therein.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub-section (I), an order made
there under may provide for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise, the production,
manufacture, possession, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sale, purchase,
consumption, use, storage, distribution, disposal or acquisition of any controlled substance.]
10. Power of State Government to permit, control and regulate.-
(l) Subject to the provisions of section 8, the State Government may, by rules
(a) permit and regulate-
(i) the possession, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, warehousing, sale, purchase,
consumption and use of poppy straw;
202
(ii) the possession, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sale, purchase, consumption
and use of opium;
(iii) the cultivation of any cannabis plant, production, manufacture, possession, transport, import
inter-State, export inter-State, sale, purchase consumption or use of cannabis (excluding charas);
(iv) the manufacture of medicinal opium or any preparation containing any manufactured drug
from materials which the maker is lawfully entitled to possess;
(v) the possession, transport, purchase, sale, import inter-State, export inter-State, use or
consumption of manufactured drugs other than prepared opium and of coca leaf and any
preparation containing any manufactured drug;
(vi) the manufacture and possession of prepared opium from opium lawfully possessed by an
addict registered with the State Government on medical advice for his personal consumption:
Provided that save in so far as may be expressly provided in the rules made under sub-clauses
(iv) and (v), nothing in section 8 shall apply to the import inter-State, export inter-State,
transport, possession, purchase, sale, use or consumption of manufactured drugs which are the
property and in the possession of the Government:
Provided further that such drugs as are referred to in the preceding proviso shall not be sold or
otherwise delivered to any person who, under the rules made by the State Government under the
aforesaid sub-clauses, is not entitled to their possession;
(b) prescribe any other matter requisite to render effective the control of the State Government
over any of the matters specified in clause (a).
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may-
(a) empower the State Government to declare any place to be warehouse wherein it shall be the
duty of the owners to deposit all such poppy straw as is legally imported inter-State and is
intended for export inter-State or export from India; to regulate the safe custody of such poppy
straw warehoused and the removal of such poppy straw for sale or export inter-State or export
from India; to levy fees for such warehousing and to prescribe the manner in which and the
period after which the poppy straw warehoused shall be disposed of in default of payment of
fees;
(b) provide that the limits within which licences may be given for the cultivation of any cannabis
plant shall be fixed from time to time by or under the orders of the State Government;
203
(c) provide that only the cultivators licensed by the prescribed authority of testate Government
shall be authorized to engage in cultivation of any cannabis plant;
(d) require that all cannabis, the produce of land cultivated with cannabis plant, shall be
delivered by the cultivators to the officers of the State Government authorized in this behalf;
(e) empower the State Government to fix from time to time, the price to be paid to the cultivators
for the cannabis delivered;
(f) prescribe the forms and conditions of licences or permits for the purposes specified in sub
clauses
(i) to (vi) of clause (a) of subsection (1) and the authorities by which such licences or permits
may be granted and the fees that may be charged therefore.
11. Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc., not liable to distress or attachment.-
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or contract, no narcotic drug,
psychotropic substance, coca plant, the opium poppy or cannabis plant shall be liable to be
distained or attached by any person for the recovery of any money under any order or decree of
any court or authority or otherwise.
12. Restrictions over external dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.-
No person shall engage in or control any trade whereby a narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance is obtained outside India and supplied to any person outside India save with the
previous authorization of the Central Government and subject to such conditions as may be
imposed by that Government in this behalf.
13. Special provisions relating to coca plant and coca leaves for use in the preparation of
flavoring agent.-Notwithstanding anything contained in section 8, the Central Government may
permit, with or without conditions, and on behalf of Government, the cultivation of any coca
plant or gathering of any portion thereof or the production, possession, sale, purchase, transport,
import inter-State, export inter-State or import into India of coca leaves for use in the preparation
of any flavoring agent which shall not contain any alkaloid and to the extent necessary for such
use.
14. Special provision relating to cannabis.-Notwithstanding anything contained in section 8,
Government may, by general or special order and subject to such conditions as may be specified
in such order, allow cultivation of any cannabis plant for industrial purposes only of obtaining
fiber or seed or for horticultural purposes.
204
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
1. Punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw -Whoever, in contravention of
any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of a license granted there under,
produces, possesses, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State, sells, purchases, uses or
omits to warehouse poppy straw or removes or does any act in respect of warehoused poppy
straw shall be punishable,
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with
both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than
small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also
be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh
rupees. Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine
exceeding two lakh rupees.
2. Punishment for contravention in relation to coca plant and coca leaves-Whoever, in
contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of license
granted there under, cultivates any coca plant or gathers any portion of a coca plant or produces,
possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses coca leaves
shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or with
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
3. Punishment for contravention in relation to prepared opium- Whoever, in contravention
of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted there under,
manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or
uses prepared opium shall be punishable,
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with
both; or
205
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than
small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; or
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also
be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh
rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine
exceeding two lakh rupees.
4.Punishment for contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium -Whoever, in
contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of license
granted there under, cultivates the opium poppy or produces, manufactures, possesses, sells,
purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses opium shall be punishable,
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with
both;
(b) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also
be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees which may extend to two lakh
rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding
two lakh rupees;
(c) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine
which may extend to one lakh rupees.]
5. Punishment for embezzlement of opium by cultivator -Any cultivator licensed to cultivate
the opium poppy on account of the Central Government who embezzles or otherwise illegally
disposes of the opium produced or any part thereof, shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty
years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh but which may extend
to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding
two lakh rupees.
206
6. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis-Whoever, in
contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of license
granted there under,
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter- State, exports
inter- State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable
[(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and
(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),
(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend
to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for term which shall not be
less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which
shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the
court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.]
7. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations-
Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of
license granted there under, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-
State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any
manufactured drug shall be punishable,
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend totem thousand rupees, or with
both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than
small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also
207
be liable to fine which shall not belles than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh
rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a Fine
exceeding two lakh rupees.
8. Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances- Whoever, in
contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of license
granted there under, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, import sinter-State,
exports inter-State or uses any psychotropic substance shall be punishable,
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with
both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than
small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also
be
liable
1. Subs. by Act 9 of 2001, sec. 8, for sections 21 to 23 (w.e.f. 2-10-2001). to fine which shall not
be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding
two lakh rupees.
9. Punishment for illegal import in to India, export from India or transhipment of narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances-Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or
any rule or order made or condition of license or permit granted or certificate or authorization
issued there under, imports into India or exports from India or transships any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance shall be punishable,-
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with
both;
208
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than
small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment- for a term which may extend to ten years, and with
fine; which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also
be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh
rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding
two lakh rupees.]
10. Punishment for external dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in
contravention of section 12-Whoever engages in or controls any trade whereby a narcotic drug
or a psychotropic substance is obtained outside India and supplied to any person outside India
without the previous authorization of the Central Government or otherwise than in accordance
with the conditions (if any) of such authorization granted under section 12, shall be punishable
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may
extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees but may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding
two lakh rupees.
11. Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence-
Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room,
enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the
commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall
be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence.]
[11A. Punishment for contravention of orders made under section 9A. –If any person
contravenes an order made under section 9A, he shall be punishable
1. Subs. by Act 9 of 2001, sec. 9, for section 25 (w.e.f. 2-10-2001).
2. Ins. by Act 2 of 1989, sec. 7 (w.e.f. 29-5-1989).
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees:
209
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding
one lakh rupees.]
12. Punishment for certain acts by licensee or his servants-If the holder of any license, permit
or authorization granted under this Act or any rule or order made there under or any person in his
employ and acting on his behalf
(a) omits, without any reasonable cause, to maintain accounts or to submit any return in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, or any rule made there under;
(b) fails to produce without any reasonable cause such license, permit or authorization on
demand of any officer authorized by the Central Government or State Government in this behalf;
(c) keeps any accounts or makes any statement which is false or which he knows or has reasons
to believe to be incorrect; or
(d) willfully and knowingly does any act in breach of any of the conditions of license, permit or
authorization for which a penalty is not prescribed elsewhere in this Act, he shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
COMMENTS
It is well settled that a licensee is responsible for the act of his employee done within the scope
of his authority although contrary to the instructions of the licensee; Allen v.Whitehead, (1930) 1
KB 211.
CHAPTER-7- FACTOR AFFECTING PRICING OF MEDICINES
External factors
210
(A)Government:
Drug Policy, 1986
1. The Drug Policy of 1986, which was titled "Measures for Rationalization, Quality Control and
Growth of Drugs & Pharmaceuticals industry in India" was evolved under the dynamic guidance
and leadership of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi. This was done after a detailed examination of the
various issues. The main objectives of the Drug Policy, 1986 are as under:
Ensuring abundant availability, at reasonable prices of essential and life saving and prophylactic
medicines of good quality;
Strengthening the system of quality control over drug production and promoting the rational use
of drugs in the country;
Creating an environment conducive to channelizing new investment into the pharmaceutical
industry to encouraging cost-effective production with economic sizes and to introducing new
technologies and new drugs; and Strengthening the indigenous capability for production of
drugs.
2. for meeting the requirements of medicines for health needs at reasonable prices and
strengthening the indigenous base, the Government has, over the years been guided by the above
Policy. Implementation of the main policy provisions has been through the I(D&R) Act on
Industrial Licensing aspects and through Drugs(Prices Control) Orders under the Essential
Commodities Act in regard to the pricing mechanism. The Drug Policy has also given the policy
frame work in regard to Quality Control and Rational Use of Drugs. Enforcement of quality and
standards in medicines is done through the provisions contained in the Drugs & Cosmetics Act,
which is administered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
3. Over the last several years, policy inputs have been directed towards promoting the growth of
the industry and in helping it to achieve a broad base in terms of the range of products and
technologies needed to produce them from as basic a stage as possible. The results have been
very encouraging. As on date, there are about 250 large units and about 8,000 small scale units in
operation, which form the core of the Industry (including 5 Central Public Sector Units). These
units produce the complete range of formulations i.e. medicines ready for consumption by
patients, and about 350 bulk drugs, i.e. chemicals having therapeutic value used for production of
formulations. It is estimated that 70 per cent of the indigenous demand for bulk drugs and almost
the entire demand for formulations are being met through domestic production.
211
4. During the last decade the production of bulk drugs has grown from Rs. 240 crores in 1980-81
to Rs. 1320 crores in 1993-94 and corresponding increase in production of formulations has been
from Rs. 1200 crores to Rs. 6900 crores. The export performance of Industry has also been
commendable. The trade balance has been positive for the last four consecutive years. During
1992-93 the trade balance was Rs. 560 crores (excluding exports of Medicinal Castor Oil).
5. Since 1986, the Drug Industry has grown significantly, as mentioned earlier, in terms of
production of bulk drugs and formulations. In many cases manufacture of bulk drugs has also
been established from the desired basic stage. It is estimated that in case of bulk drug production
the contribution of small scale sector is approximately 30 per cent of the total production in the
country. It may also be mentioned that the pharmaceutical sector has been able to carve a special
niche for itself in the international market as a dependable exporter of bulk drugs.
6. Import and Economic policies have undergone major changes like pruning of the Negative
List for imports, doing away with the Actual User condition and full convertibility of Rupee on
trade account. In this changed scenario, it is felt that there is no need to be more restrictive than
before in granting industrial approvals, provided the two main concerns i.e., achieving basic
stage manufacture and discouraging undue imports, are adequately taken care of. Under the
circumstances, these objectives can be achieved only through the tariff mechanism and the
EXIM policy and as such Industrial Licensing and conditions stipulated therein have lost their
relevance. It is also felt that, like in the other sectors of the economy, production would get the
necessary impetus to meet any future demands as well as of ensuring adequate availability of
drugs at reasonable prices if a more liberalized regime is operated in granting industrials
approvals. Many of the drugs reserved for the Public Sector Undertakings have lost relevance
vis-à-vis production program of these units. Therefore, there is need to prune the list of items
reserved for the Public Sector to only a few select items, where capacity in Public Sector is
adequate to meet the country's demand and heavy public investment has been made.
Research and Development
7. The Drug Industry is a highly R&D oriented sector in which there is a very high rate of
obsolescence. This sector has also been identified as one of the thrust areas for exports. There is,
therefore, need to ensure that the technologies used in the country are cost effective and efficient.
It is necessary to attract greater investment into this sector in order to update the existing
technologies and for bringing into the country technologies which are not currently available. At
212
the same time it has to be noted that the Indian companies have achieved considerable stature in
terms of production as well as in marketing ability and indigenous technology has also reached a
commendable level in many cases. However, in view of GATT accord and impending changes in
Patent Laws, the subject matter of Basic Research in drug sector has assumed greater importance
and needs to be attended to on an urgent basis.
Investments
8. Keeping in view the need to encourage more investment in this important sector to achieve the
future demands likely to be placed on it in order to meet the growing needs of the country as well
as to promote exports, it is proposed to treat the entire drugs and pharmaceutical sector as a high
priority industry for the purposes of permitting foreign investment in terms of Appendix-III of
the New Industrial Policy. It is also proposed to treat companies with foreign equity up to 51 per
cent on par with wholly Indian companies. It may also be mentioned that at present companies
with foreign equity up to 40 per cent are already enjoying this facility and, in the circumstances
mentioned above there is no need to place any fresh curbs on their activities. Similarly, it is felt
that automatic approval for foreign technology agreements can be permitted for all items in the
Drugs and Pharmaceuticals sector to encourage the introduction of newer and more efficient
technologies, subject to their fulfilling the standard conditions laid down in the Industrial Policy.
However, keeping in mind the levels of technology already available in the country, it is
necessary to consider proposals involving foreign equity participation above 51 per cent on
merits of each case.
Pricing
9. The aberrations which have come to notice, in the listing of drugs and their categorization for
the purpose of price control, need to be eliminated by the use of transparent criteria applied
across the board on all the drugs with the minimum use of subjectivity. The high turnover of a
drug is an index of its extent of usage and is considered to meet the requirements of objectivity
justifiable on economic considerations. However, the monopoly situation in cases of drugs with
comparatively lower turnover has also to be kept in view. Also as an experimental measure,
drugs having adequate competition may not be kept under price control and if this proves
successful it would pave the way for further liberalization. In the event, however, of prices of
these drugs not remaining within reasonable limits, the Government would reclaim price control.
213
10. The categorization of drugs into two lists with different Maximum Allowable Post-
manufacturing Expenses (MAPE) allows a lower MAPE of 75 per cent for the drugs required for
National Health Programs (Category I drugs) as against 100% for others (Category II drugs). To
encourage the production and availability of these drugs, it is considered necessary to allow a
uniform MAPE in all cases of drugs under price control. Further, to achieve uniformity in prices
of widely used formulations, it is considered that there should be ceiling prices for commonly
marketed standard pack sizes of price controlled formulations and it should be obligatory for all,
including small scale units, to follow the prices so fixed. Also, to give encouragement to
manufacture of drugs from basic stage, it is considered necessary to allow higher return in such
cases over the existing rates.
11. In the light of the apprehensions expressed in the Parliament on the likely spurt in the prices
of medicines, it has been felt that it would not be desirable to allow automaticity in the pricing
mechanism. The Government would set up an independent body of experts, to be called the
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, to do the work of price fixation. This expert body
would also be entrusted with the task of updating the list of drugs under price control each year
on the basis of the established criteria/guideline. Time limits would be provided for deciding the
applications of price approvals and, to begin with, it is proposed to set a time limit of two months
for formulations and four months for bulk drugs. This body would also monitor the prices of
decontrolled drugs and formulations and oversee the implementation of the provisions of the
Drugs (Prices Control) Order. The Government would have the power of review.
12. Government will keep a close watch on the prices of medicines which are taken out of price
control. In case, the prices of these medicines raise unreasonably, the Government would take
appropriate measures, including reclamping of price control
Quality Control and Rational use of Drugs
13. Quality Control and Rational use of Drugs are important aspects of Pharmaceutical Industry.
Steps have been taken for strengthening Drug Control Organization by sanctioning additional
posts at various levels and by establishing sub-zonal offices at Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and
Patna. The Bio-Laboratory at Madras has been upgraded to the level of National Laboratory.
The Central Drugs Laboratory at Bombay, functioning from 1992 is in the process of being
upgraded while Regional Laboratories at Guwahati, Chandigarh and Hyderabad are in the
214
process of being set up. To improve the existing State Drugs Testing Laboratories and to set up
new ones, wherever not established, funds have been sanctioned under a Centrally Sponsored
Scheme, besides providing funds under this scheme for augmenting Drug Inspectorate Staff. For
certain categories of drugs, which had caused adverse effects due to the lack of drug control in
one or the other State, the Central Government has taken upon itself the responsibility of
granting license. These drugs are; (i) Large Volume Parenterals, (ii) Sera and Vaccines and (iii)
whole Human Blood and Blood Products. Moreover, the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
have been made mandatory.
14. Screening of irrational or harmful drugs is an ongoing exercise and 44 categories of
formulations have been banned so far and the definition of new drugs has been widened and
guidelines issued on clinical trials. With a view to ensuring proper dispensing and rational use of
drugs, packaging have been standardised. Five leading hospitals at Pondicherry, Chandigarh,
New Delhi, Bombay and Lucknow have been identified as Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring
Centers.
15. While Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are taking some action on these matters, the
general perception unfortunately is that this area is presently being neglected. In the interest of
the consumers, there cannot be any compromise on quality aspects of medicines and the problem
has assumed greater dimension in view of the large number of small scale drug manufacturing
units which are estimated to be over 8000 in number.
National Drug Authority
16. In view of the above it is envisaged that a National Drug Authority may be set up by a
separate Act of Parliament to perform the following functions;
(1) Develop and define basic appropriate standards relating to the manufacture, import, supply,
promotion and use of drugs.
(2) To approve and register pharmaceutical products for use in the country only if
(a) it meets real medical need,
(b) it is therapeutically effective, and
(c) it is acceptable safe
(3) To enforce effectively appropriate quality standards of medicines and Good Manufacturing
Practices, throughout the country, having full regard to the needs of public health and standardize
dosage strengths and pack sizes of formulations with a view to check proliferation.
215
(4) To monitor standard practices in drug promotion and use and to clearly identify those which
are acceptable and prohibit those which are unethical and against the consumers interest.
(5) To monitor the prescribing practices and to evaluate their appropriateness for the purpose of
guiding the medical profession and for achieving the aim of rational prescribing.
(6) To ensure that appropriate information about registered pharmaceuticals is made available for
the guidance of consumers having regard to;
(a) he adverse consequences of non-compliance by patients particularly in the case of
antibiotics, steroids etc.,
(b) dangers of self-medication, and
(c) the need to involve consumers as full partners in the health care system
(7) To prepare and publish a national formulary and formularies relevant to various levels (like
district hospital, community centre, primary health centre) for the guidance of consumers as well
as doctors.
17. The functions mentioned above involve new responsibilities which will include:-
Special focus on examining the technology of bulk drugs; capacity validation of machinery;
assessing suitability of manpower for bulk drug production; undertaking scientific scrutiny of
master formulae for manufacture of formulations; developing testing labs for cosmetics,
diagnostics and devices; laying down standards for veterinary drugs; examination of labels and
promotional claims and prescribing procedures for public hearing under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act; monitoring of clinical trials for the protection of human rights; quality control of
herbal medicines; updating new drug approval process; weeding out of irrational combination
formulations; and formation of expert committees for examination of new drugs.
18. In addition, screening promotional literature, monitoring ongoing clinical trials through an
Institutional Review Board, unearthing sub-standard and spurious drugs with the help of Legal
cum Intelligence Cells, centralizing all manufacturing licensees for inter-State commerce,
updating Good Manufacturing Practices and education to achieve judicious use of drugs, setting
up of new analytical testing labs, as well as imparting continuous education and skills for
inspection and testing and setting up of Dispute Mechanism Cell are envisaged.
19. There is an imperative need to undertake up gradation of the drug testing facilities under the
Central and State organizations as well as augmentation of the Drug Control and enforcement
staff to enable statutory inspections to be undertaken as provided for under the Act. Therefore,
216
there is need for establishing more zonal and sub-zonal offices under the Central Drug Standards
Control Organization as well as additional Regional Drug Testing Laboratories.
20. The implementation of the above proposals would require additional funds, which are
proposed to be mobilized by levying a cess of 1% on production of drugs and pharmaceuticals,
by a special legislation to be piloted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The funds
mobilized through the cess would be utilized also for encouraging Research and Development in
the drug sector.
Indigenous and Other Systems of Medicines
21. Various aspects relating to development and promotion of Ayurvedic, Unani, Sidha,
Homeopathic and traditional systems of medicines would be actively pursued and the machinery
for carrying out these tasks would be adequately strengthened. To provide better focus to this
important work it is felt that there is need to create a separate Department, to look after all
matters relating to development and promotion of these systems of medicines.
Decisions in regard to Modification in Drug Policy'86
The Government decided to modify the Drug Policy, 1986 as follows :
22.1.1 Industrial Licensing for all bulk drugs cleared by Drug Controller (India) and all their
intermediates will be abolished, except in the cases of
(i) 5 identified bulk drugs which are to continue to be exclusively reserved for the Public Sector
as mentioned in Para 22.3 below,
(ii) bulk drugs produced by the use of recombinant DNA technology, and
(iii)bulk drugs requiring in-vivo use of nucleic acids as the active principles.
22.1.2 Conditions stipulating mandatory supply of a percentage of bulk drug production to Non-
associated Formulators will be abolished.
22.1.3 Licensing shall be abolished for formulations except in cases of specific cell/tissue
targeted formulations.
22.1.4 Ratio parameters linking bulk drugs and formulations production and limiting the use of
imported bulk drugs will stand abolished.
22.1.5 Broad-banding, locational restrictions and grant of COB licenses will be in accordance
with the Industrial Policy.
217
(The Memorandum of information prescribed by the Department of Industrial Development shall
include an Addendum, to meet the additional requirement of the Drugs & Pharmaceuticals
industry, as would be devised by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals.)
22.2 BASIC STAGE PRODUCTION
For achieving manufacture from the basic stages and arresting the regression towards
manufacturing from later stage intermediates/penultimates, the tariff mechanism would be
utilized. Imports of critical intermediates/penultimates may also be put in the negative list so as
to arrest regression from basic stage manufacturing.
22.4 FOREIGN INVESTMENT
22.4.1 Investment up to 51 per cent will be permitted in the case of all bulk drugs, their
intermediates and formulations.
22.4.2 Investment above 51 per cent will be considered on a case by case basis in areas where
investment is otherwise not forthcoming, particularly in the manufacture of bulk drugs from
basic stages and their intermediates, and bulk drugs produced by the use of recombinant DNA
technology as well as the specific cell/tissue targeted formulations.
22.5 FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENTS
Automatic approval for foreign technology agreements shall be given in the case of all bulk
drugs, their intermediates and formulations except those produced by the use of recombinant
DNA technology, for which the existing procedure would continue.
22.6 ENCOURAGEMENT TO RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (R&D) EFFORTS
22.6.1 A new drug which has not been produced elsewhere, if developed through indigenous
R&D would be put outside price control for a period of 10 years from the date of commercial
production in favor of the Company who undertook the R&D.
22.6.2 The Department of Chemicals Petrochemicals would set up an Inter-Ministerial group to
decide, within a set time frame, on measures to give further impetus to R&D in the Drug Sector.
22.6.3 The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare would further streamline the required
procedures and steps for the quick evaluation and clearance of new drug applications, especially
those developed through indigenous R&D.
Ceiling Prices
218
Ceiling prices would be fixed for commonly marketed standard pack sizes of price-controlled
formulations and it would be obligatory for all, including small scale units, to follow the price
so fixed.
22.7.4 SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE
(i) An independent body of experts, to be called the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority,
will be entrusted with the task of price-fixation/revision and other related matters such as
updating the list of drugs under price control by inclusion and exclusion on the basis of the
established criteria/guidelines and would be empowered to take final decisions. The Government
would have the power of review. It would also monitor the prices of decontrolled drugs and
formulations and oversee the implementation of the provisions of the Drugs (Prices Control)
Order.
(ii) The time-frame for granting price approvals will be 2 months for formulations and 4 months
for bulk drugs from the date of receipt of the complete prescribed information.
22.7.5 ENCOURAGEMENT TO PRODUCTION FROM BASIC STAGE
The rate of return in case of basic manufacture would be higher by 4 per cent over the existing
14 per cent on net worth or 22 per cent on capital employed.
22.8 SETTING UP OF NATIONAL DRUG AUTHORITY
22.8.1 A National Drug Authority would be set up by an Act of the Parliament, to be steered by
the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to look after the Quality Control aspects, Rational
Use of Drugs and related matters as outlined in Paras 16-19 above.
22.8.2 For strengthening the drug control system including GMP and for encouraging R&D, a
cess of 1% would be levied on production of drugs and pharmaceuticals through legislation,
details of which would be worked out by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
22.9 COORDINATION BETWEEN MINISTRIES
A Coordination Committee consisting of Secretaries of the Ministries/ Departments of
Commerce, Revenue, Health, Bio-technology and Industrial Development and Chairman, Bureau
of Industrial Costs and Prices will be set up under the chairmanship of Secretary (Chemicals and
Petrochemicals) for monitoring the areas of key concern every quarter and for tracking effective
and timely action. The Chairman of the proposed National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
would also be co-opted on this committee, as and when it is constituted.
22.10 OTHER MATTERS
219
The various aspects relating to promotion of Ayurvedic, Unani, Sidha, Homeopathic and
traditional systems of medicines would be actively pursued and the machinery for carrying out
these tasks would be adequately strengthened. To provide better focus to this important work, a
separate Department, to look after all matters relating to development and promotion of these
systems of medicines, would be created.
INDIA ALTERS LAW ON DRUG PATENTS:
India, a major source of inexpensive AIDS drugs, passed a new patent law yesterday that groups
providing drugs to the world's poorest patient’s fear will choke off their supply of new
treatments.
The new law, amending India's 1970 Patent Act, affects everything from electronics to software
to medicines, and has been expected for years as a condition for India to join the World Trade
Organization.
But because millions of poor people in India and elsewhere -- including by some estimates half
the AIDS patients in the Third World -- rely on India's generic drug industry, lobbyists for
multinational drug companies as well as activists fighting for cheap drugs had descended on New
Delhi to try to influence the outcome.
The law, which passed by a voice vote in Parliament's upper house yesterday after days of
wrangling over amendments in the lower house, was in the end not as restrictive as the drug
activists had feared.
''It's very disappointing, but it could have been worse,'' said Daniel Berman, a coordinator of the
global access campaign for the medical charity Doctors Without Borders. ''All generics could
have been removed from the market.''
Instead, all the generic drugs already approved in India can still be sold, though sellers must now
pay licensing fees. There are also provisions allowing companies that make generics to copy
drugs in the future.
220
But there are relatively tough criteria for such copying, and activists predicted that prices for
newly invented drugs will be much higher, because drug makers will have the same 20-year
patent monopolies as they have in the West. As AIDS patients develop resistance to old drugs,
new treatments will become less affordable, they said.
In addition, it is unclear whether makers of generic drugs in other countries, like Brazil, China
and Thailand, will fill any increasing demand for cheaper medicines.
But India's governing Congress Party, which sponsored the bill, disputed the contention that
prices would soar. ''The government will have enormous powers to deal with any unusual price
rise,'' said Commerce Minister Kamal Nath.
All Western countries grant ''product patents'' on new inventions. Since 1970, India has granted
''process patents,'' which allow another inventor to patent the same product as long as it was
created by a novel process. In pharmaceuticals, that has meant that a tiny tweak in the synthesis
of a molecule yields a new patent. Several companies can produce the same drug, creating
competition that drives down prices.
Before 1970, India's patent laws came from its colonial days, and it had some of the world's
highest drug prices. Process patents on drugs, fertilizers and pesticides have extended life
expectancy and ended regular famines.
In Africa, exports by Indian companies, especially Cipla and Ranbaxy Laboratories, helped drive
the annual price of antiretroviral treatment down from $15,000 per patient a decade ago to about
$200 now. They also simplified therapy by putting three AIDS drugs in one pill. Dr. Yusuf
Hamied, Cipla's chairman, called the new law ''a very sad day for India.''
But some other Indian drug makers, along with multinational companies, praised it. The
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, a Geneva-based
lobbying group, called the law ''a significant step'' that would let India ''take a leading role in
global pharmaceutical research and development.''
221
S. Ramakrishna, chief lobbyist for Pfizer India, a subsidiary of the world's largest drug maker,
said the bill's passage abandoned ''the utopian concept that every invention should be as free as
air or water,'' according to The International Herald Tribune.
In the United States, Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers
of America, the lobbying organization for the American drug industry, said the new law would
be ''good for India and good for Indian patients,'' but cautioned that his group was ''still
measuring the impact on the overall bill of several last-minute amendments.'
(B) Competitors
The pharmaceutical market has become increasingly competitive since the early 1980s, in part
because of the dramatic growth of the generic drug industry. In 1996, 43 percent of the
prescription drugs sold in the United States (as measured in total countable units, such as tablets
and capsules) were generic. Twelve years earlier, the figure was just 19 percent. Generic drugs
cost less than their brand-name, or "innovator," counterparts. Thus, they have played an
important role in holding down national spending on prescription drugs from what it would
otherwise have been. Considering only sales through pharmacies, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) estimates that by substituting generic for brand-name drugs, purchasers saved
roughly $8 billion to $10 billion in 1994 (at retail prices).
Three factors are behind the dramatic rise in sales of generic drugs that has made those savings
possible. First, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984--commonly
known as the Hatch-Waxman Act--made it easier and less costly for manufacturers to enter the
market for generic, non antibiotic drugs. Second, by 1980, most states had passed drug-product
substitution laws that allowed pharmacists to dispense a generic drug even when the prescription
called for a brand-name drug. And third, some government health programs, such as Medicaid,
and many private health insurance plans have actively promoted such generic substitution.
Greater sales of generic drugs reduce the returns that pharmaceutical companies earn from
developing brand-name drugs. The Hatch-Waxman Act aimed to limit that effect by extending
the length of time that a new drug is under patent--and thus protected from generic competitors.
Those extensions compensate for the fact that part of the time a drug is under patent it is being
reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rather than being sold. The act tried to
222
balance two competing objectives: encouraging competition from generic drugs while
maintaining the incentive to invest in developing innovative drugs. It fell somewhat short of
achieving that balance, however, in part because the act shortened the average time between the
expiration of a brand-name drug's patent and the arrival of generic copies on the market (so-
called generic entry) from more than three years to less than three months. More important, it
also greatly increased the number of drugs that experience generic competition and, thus,
contributed to an increase in the supply of generic drugs. In the end, the cost to producers of
brand-name drugs from faster generic entry has roughly offset the benefit they receive from
extended patent terms. Meanwhile, the greater competition from generic drugs has somewhat
eroded their expected returns from research and development.
CBO estimates that those factors have lowered the average returns from marketing a new drug
by roughly 12 percent (or $27 million in 1990 dollars). In this study, "returns from marketing a
new drug" refers to the present discounted value of the total stream of future profits expected
from an average brand-name drug. Previous studies estimate that those profits had an average
present discounted value of $210 million to $230 million (in 1990 dollars) for drugs introduced
in the early 1980s. Those returns are valued at the date of market introduction, after subtracting
production costs but not the costs of research and development. Also, because the drugs in those
studies were not eligible for the patent-term extensions provided by the Hatch-Waxman Act,
those estimates do not account for the benefits of the extensions now available under the act.
Thus, those figures can be considered a minimum estimate of the returns from marketing. Only
part of the estimated decline in returns can be attributed to the Hatch-Waxman Act; the other
factors that have boosted sales of generic drugs have played a role as well.
This study relies on a variety of data to produce its estimates, including a data set that represents
about 70 percent of prescription drug sales through retail pharmacies in the United States. The
various sets of data all have strengths and weaknesses, which are discussed along with the
estimates they generate. In general, the empirical estimates in this study are rough rather than
precise measures. They help characterize the increase in competition in the pharmaceutical
market and its effects on the profits of drug manufacturers and the prices paid for prescription
drugs.
223
The Effects of Managed Care on the Pharmaceutical Market
At the same time that the Hatch-Waxman Act has helped increase the supply of generic drugs,
changes in the demand for pharmaceuticals have affected the frequency with which generic and
brand-name drugs are prescribed and the prices paid for them. Those changes in demand were
brought on by newer forms of health care delivery and financing. In particular, because of
competitive pressure in the health insurance market, more private-sector health plans have
adopted managed care techniques in an effort to hold down overall health spending. The net
effect of those techniques on spending for prescription drugs, however, is unclear.
On the one hand, many health plans (including traditional fee-for-service plans) hold down drug
costs by "managing" their outpatient prescription drug benefits--either themselves or through
organizations called pharmaceutical benefit management companies (PBMs). Those plans and
PBMs use computer networks at pharmacies and electronic card systems for enrollees that allow
pharmacists, before filling an enrollee's prescription, to consult a list (or formulary) of the plan's
suggested drugs. Formularies typically encourage substituting brand-name drugs with generic
versions, or sometimes with other, less expensive brand-name drugs. Savings result not only
because of that substitution but also because many manufacturers of brand-name drugs offer
discounts to health plans or PBMs in exchange for being included on their formulary. In
addition, because they represent a large pool of customers, PBMs can negotiate with pharmacies
over the retail prices charged for prescriptions. Since the late 1980s, those various techniques
have been putting downward pressure on the prices that PBMs and health plans pay for
prescription drugs sold through pharmacies.
On the other hand, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and some other managed care
plans frequently charge lower copayments for health care services--including physician visits
and prescription drugs--than traditional fee-for-service plans do. Those lower copayments may
lead to greater use of prescription drugs by beneficiaries. The treatment practices of HMOs may
also favor more intensive use of prescription drugs, perhaps as an alternative to costlier forms of
treatment. As a result, the increasing prevalence of managed care plans may have helped boost
the quantity of prescription drugs sold in the United States.
For brand-name drugs still under patent (which do not yet have generic competitors), managed
care techniques may have only a small effect on profits, assuming that greater use offsets the
downward pressure on prices. For brand-name drugs whose patents have expired, however,
224
profits are probably lower than they would have been without the generic substitution promoted
in part by managed care plans and PBMs; that substitution has cut dramatically into the market
share of those drugs.
Pricing and Competition in the Pharmaceutical Market
Competition in the pharmaceutical market takes three forms: among brand-name drugs that are
therapeutically similar, between brand-name drugs and generic substitutes, and among generic
versions of the same drug. Manufacturers of brand-name drugs compete for market share
primarily through advertising and the quality of their products (including efficacy and side
effects), as well as through pricing. Manufacturers of generic drugs increase their market share
mainly by lowering prices. (In general, companies produce either generic or brand-name drugs,
not both, although some generic manufacturers are subsidiaries of brand-name manufacturers.)
Competition Among Brand-Name Drugs
Patents do not grant complete monopoly power in the pharmaceutical industry. The reason is that
companies can frequently discover and patent several different drugs that use the same basic
mechanism to treat an illness. The first drug using the new mechanism to treat that illness--the
breakthrough drug--usually has between one and six years on the market before a therapeutically
similar patented drug (sometimes called a "me-too" drug) is introduced. Economic theory and
various studies suggest that the presence of several therapeutically similar drugs limits
manufacturers' ability to raise prices as much as would otherwise be the case. In addition, brand-
name manufacturers are more likely to agree to give purchasers a discount if those purchasers
have the option of switching to a generic or me-too competitor.
The factors that limit the number of similar but slightly differentiated brand-name drugs on the
market are unclear. In some cases, perhaps, only a limited number of slightly different chemicals
that target a given enzyme can be developed into drugs. Or, as one economist has suggested, the
high cost of developing a drug may limit the number of similar brand-name drugs that are
eventually brought to market. Companies will undertake such investment only if they believe the
market is not already saturated or their drug has some quality advantage that could enable it to
compete effectively and earn an adequate return. For that reason, competition among patented
brand-name drugs probably results in companies' earning roughly a normal rate of return on their
investment in research and development (R&D), on average.
225
Overall, the pharmaceutical market is not highly concentrated, but when that market is divided
into narrowly defined therapeutic classes, it becomes quite concentrated. The top manufacturers
of brand-name drugs, ranked by pharmaceutical sales, each account for no more than 7 percent
of the entire market for prescription drugs (which totaled $60.7 billion in 1995 at manufacturer
prices). Within each therapeutic class, however, higher levels of concentration appear. In 35 of
the 66 therapeutic classes that CBO examined in this study, the top three innovator drugs
together constituted at least 80 percent of retail pharmacy sales in their class.
Studies of the average prices paid by pharmacies and hospitals have shown that manufacturers of
brand-name drugs do compete with each other through pricing. The markups they charge over
the marginal cost of producing a drug are consistent with economic models of price competition
in which entry by manufacturers is limited (such as by patents). Offering discounts to some
buyers may also be an important dimension of price competition for brand-name drugs. But its
extent is difficult to measure because of lack of data.
Discounts on Brand-Name Drugs
Different buyers pay different prices for brand-name prescription drugs. In theory, when
companies are permitted to charge different types of purchasers different prices, those purchasers
least sensitive to price will pay the most. In today's market for outpatient drugs, purchasers that
have no insurance coverage for drugs, or third-party payers that do not use a formulary to
manage their outpatient drug benefits, pay the highest prices for brand-name drugs.
Manufacturers offer discounts on brand-name drugs based not only on the volume purchased but
also on the buyer's ability to affect the drug's market share by using a formulary to systematically
favor one brand-name drug over another for a large number of patients. Pharmacies themselves
do not generally promote substitution between brand-name drugs, so they do not generally
receive large discounts or rebates from manufacturers. Rather, it is the PBMs and insurers who
manage benefits for drugs sold through pharmacies that promote brand-name substitution and
receive discounts.
Such price discrimination, or discounting, may be an important mechanism for facilitating price
competition in the pharmaceutical market. It rewards institutional purchasers that organize their
patient base through formularies so as to encourage the use of less costly drugs. Prohibiting
discounts, as some policymakers have called for, could decrease price competition.
226
Drug companies usually do not make their discounts public, but CBO was able to obtain limited
information on the prices paid by different types of purchasers for prescription drugs. The prices
that pharmacies pay can be seen as a proxy for the final price paid by customers who do not have
a managed drug benefit or PBM to negotiate rebates from manufacturers. Based on the average
invoice prices for top-selling drugs sold primarily to retail pharmacies, hospitals and clinics pay
9 percent less than retail pharmacies, on average, and HMOs pay 18 percent less. Federal
facilities, such as veterans' hospitals, get an even more substantial discount--over 40 percent, on
average, compared with the price paid by retail pharmacies. (Those comparisons are based only
on invoice prices, so they do not account for rebates and other types of discounts that do not
appear on invoices.)
Statistical analysis shows that manufacturers' discounts on brand-name drugs tend to be higher
when more generic and me-too drugs are available. That analysis is based on the difference
between the average price paid by pharmacies and the lowest price paid by any private purchaser
in the United States (the best-price discount), as reported under the Medicaid drug rebate
program. CBO found that the best-price discount for a brand-name drug was 10 to 14 percentage
points greater when a generic version was available from four or more manufacturers. That
analysis also showed that as the number of brand-name manufacturers in a therapeutic class
increases from one to five, the best-price discount grows by 10 percentage points. Those
statistical results imply that discounts are at least partly a response to competitive market
conditions and may be a sign of greater price competition in some segments of the
pharmaceutical market.
Competition Among Generic Drugs
By making generic entry easier and less costly, the Hatch-Waxman Act helped increase the
number of generic manufacturers producing the same drug. As the number of manufacturers
rises, the average prescription price of a generic drug falls. CBO's analysis shows that when one
to 10 firms are manufacturing and distributing generic forms of a particular drug, the generic
retail price of that drug averages about 60 percent of the brand-name price. When more than 10
manufacturers have entered the market, the average generic prescription price falls to less than
half of the brand-name price.
227
Pricing and Competition in the Pharmaceutical Market
The federal government has competing policy objectives with respect to the pricing of
prescription drugs. On the one hand, it wants to ensure that companies have enough incentive to
invest in researching and developing innovative drugs. On the other hand, it wants to discourage
them from charging excessively high prices. In general, the government achieves the first goal
through a patent system that grants market exclusivity for a limited period of time, allowing
companies to recoup their investment in R&D. For the second goal, it relies on competition
between similar drugs to hold prices down.
This chapter examines price competition among manufacturers in the pharmaceutical market,
including the impact of the dramatic growth in the generic drug industry since 1984. Such
competition comes in three main forms: between brand-name drugs in the same therapeutic class,
between brand-name drugs and their generic counterparts, and between different generic versions
of the same drug. The pharmaceutical industry is also affected by other types of competition,
such as the substitution that sometimes occurs between prescription drugs and other forms of
medical treatment. However, the conditions under which prescription drugs can be substituted
for other medical procedures are outside the scope of this study.
The patent system provides a period of protection during which manufacturers of innovator
drugs can charge relatively high prices, earning profits that enable them to compensate for the
costs of a drug's discovery and development. Although patents prevent other manufacturers from
producing the same drug, they do not prevent manufacturers with a similar but slightly different
drug from also obtaining a patent and entering the market. Limited empirical evidence suggests
that the availability of several similar brand-name drugs tends to slow the rate of price growth,
even before generic copies become available.
The dramatic rise in generic sales since 1984 has held down average prices for drugs that are no
longer protected by a patent. However, those lower prices tend not to result from reductions in
the price of the original brand-name drug when it begins facing competition from generic drugs.
Rather, average prices fall primarily because consumers switch from the higher-priced innovator
drug to the lower-priced generics. To be on the receiving end of that switch, generic
manufacturers compete with each other intensely in the area of price, partly because they sell
identical products.
228
The increased use of generic drugs has kept total spending on prescription drugs below what it
might otherwise have been. Considering only drugs sold through retail pharmacies, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the purchase of generic drugs reduced the
cost of prescriptions (at retail prices) by roughly $8 billion to $10 billion in 1994. That estimate
assumes that all generic prescriptions dispensed would have been filled with a higher-priced
brand-name drug if the generic was not available.
Much of the analysis in this chapter relies on a set of data that represents 70 percent of
prescription drug sales at retail pharmacies in the United States in 1993 and 1994. Roughly half
of all prescription drugs are channeled through retail pharmacies (see Figure 2). Thus, the data
set represents about 35 percent of all drug sales in the United States in those years. The data
include total dollars spent on each dosage form (tablet, capsule, liquid, and so forth) of 454
brand-name drugs, as well as total spending on generic versions of the brand-name drugs whose
patents have expired.
Figure-1 Channels of Distribution for
Prescription Drugs
The unit used to measure quantity in the retail pharmacy data is the prescription. That unit can
lead to measurement errors, however, since different prescriptions for the same drug come in
different sizes. (For example, one prescription may be filled with 30 pills and another with 100
pills.) A statistical bias would occur if more pills were dispensed per prescription, on average, for
a generic drug than for its brand-name counterpart. That bias would lead to underestimating the
price difference between brand-name and generic drugs. But the bias could run in either
direction. Without a better measure of quantity, part of the analysis in this chapter relies on the
number of prescriptions to estimate sales volume and to calculate average unit prices. Implicitly,
229
those estimates assume that, in general, prescriptions for a brand-name drug and for its generic
equivalent have roughly the same average number of dosage units (such as tablets). All estimates
that rely on average prescription prices are based only on tablet and capsule formulations, which
constitute 87 percent of sales in the retail pharmacy data set. Those dosage forms yield more
reliable average prescription prices.
Competition Among Brand-Name Drugs
In general, the higher prices charged for brand-name drugs allow firms to recoup their
investment in a drug's discovery and development. Studies have found that, on average,
discovering and developing a drug takes 11 to 12 years and costs about $200 million per
successful product (in 1990 dollars).(1) That $200 million figure includes the cost of drugs that
never make it to market; it also accounts for the cost of capital--that is, the cost of waiting for a
return until the drug is introduced. Actual drug development costs may be higher today if, for
example, the cost of conducting clinical trials has increased. Conversely, costs may be lower if
the failure rate of drugs that go into clinical trials has declined.(2)
The stream of after-tax profits over the life of a typical innovator drug follows an up-and-down
pattern. The first 11 to 12 years show a negative cash flow while the drug is being developed,
undergoing testing, and awaiting approval. Over the next 20 years, as the drug is marketed, it
earns back a return on the investment in its research and development. According to two studies,
that profit stream has an average present value of $220 million to $230 million (in 1990 dollars,
after deducting manufacturing, advertising, distribution, and other non-R&D-related costs,
discounted to the date of market introduction)--which more than compensates for the $200
million in average capitalized costs of drug development. Those studies estimate that for
innovator drugs introduced in the early 1980s, after-tax profits exceeded development costs by
$22 million to $36 million, on average (in 1990 dollars, where returns are discounted and costs
are capitalized to the date of market introduction). Since the returns from selling new drugs are
highly skewed--a few drugs earn very large profits, whereas others may only cover the cost of
their own development--that average encompasses both a few big winners and some marginally
profitable drugs.
Empirical Evidence About the Pricing of Innovator Drugs
230
Studies of competition among similar brand-name drugs show that manufacturers compete
through prices as well as through advertising and product quality. Most of the empirical studies
that look at prices of brand-name drugs are based either on list prices or on average prices paid
on invoices to pharmacies and hospitals. Neither of those prices represents an actual transaction
price, however. No purchaser pays the list price, although it serves as an important signal since it
is a published price observed by all buyers. The average invoice price is much closer to an actual
transaction price, but it does not include rebates or discounts that do not appear on the invoice.
Since neither price captures the full impact of discounting, studies that rely on those prices
underestimate to some extent the level of price competition among brand-name drugs. Those are
the only prices widely available to researchers, however, so they are the ones generally used for
analyses.
CBO examined the list prices of breakthrough and me-too drugs over time for five therapeutic
classes. In four of the five, the list price of the breakthrough product continued to increase in real
terms--that is, by more than just the effects of inflation--after the entry of one or more me-too
products. In only one case (that of fluoroquinolone anti-infective) did the breakthrough drug
lower its list price in real terms after the first me-too drug entered the market.
A study by John Lu and William Comanor also found that the average list price of brand-name
drugs continues to rise faster than inflation after the introduction of a me-too competitor. (24) For
13 drugs that received an A rating from the FDA (as most innovative), the average inflation-
adjusted list price after eight years on the market was 7 percent above the launch price. For 48 B-
rated drugs (slightly less innovative), the inflation-adjusted list price was 32 percent higher, on
average, eight years after launch.
That same study also found that although prices continued to increase, the rate of increase was
slower for those drugs that had more brand-name competitors on the market. The introductory
price also tended to be lower when more similar brand-name drugs were already on the market.
Those findings suggest that the rate of price increase is slowed by competition between brand-
name drugs.
A breakthrough drug has an advantage over its me-too competitors in that doctors become
experienced with it first and are usually hesitant to try a new drug unless it is seen to be more
effective or have fewer side effects. New me-too drugs that offer small advantages over
competitors may be sold at a lower price initially; then, as they become more widely accepted,
231
their price rises more quickly. That may partially explain why the list prices of C-rated drugs
(least innovative) tend to increase much more rapidly over time than the list prices of their more
innovative competitors. Lu and Comanor found that for a sample of 69 C-rated drugs, the
average inflation-adjusted list price after eight years on the market was 62 percent above the
launch price. That high price increase occurred although those drugs were launched at roughly
the same price as their closest competitors, on average.
Price competition among similar innovator drugs is softened because products are differentiated.
It is also softened because entry in the pharmaceutical industry is limited by patent protection
and the FDA approval process. Still, companies have an incentive to continue to enter the market
with similar brand-name drugs until profits are driven down to a normal (competitive) rate of
return that adequately compensates for the risk of investing in drug development. One economist
has asserted, based on discussions with industry executives, that more me-too drugs are not
developed because they would not be profitable given the high development costs. Companies
will choose to develop a brand-name drug similar to others on the market only if they believe
that the market is not already saturated, or that their drug may have some quality advantage (such
as fewer side effects or greater efficacy) that could enable it to compete effectively and earn
profits that more than cover the development costs. Competition should result in firms' earning
close to a normal rate of return to their R&D investment, on average.
Using average invoice prices, economist Scott Stern found that cross-price elasticities (a measure
of buyers' sensitivity to price differences between similar brand-name drugs) in four therapeutic
classes were consistent with the assertion that brand-name drugs compete in price. His estimates
of price sensitivity were not consistent with the assertion that firms collude to maintain prices as
high as what would be charged if a single company produced all of the products. Several other
studies have also found that the price differences between patented pharmaceutical products can
largely be accounted for by differences in quality, such as side effects and therapeutic
effectiveness.
The price comparison is based on the average invoice prices paid by various kinds of purchasers
for 100 top-selling drugs sold largely through pharmacies. (Top-selling drugs that were
dispensed primarily in an inpatient setting, such as a hospital, were excluded.) About 85 percent
of the revenues from sales of those drugs (excluding sales to mail-order pharmacies) came from
retail pharmacies; the other 15 percent came from sales to other types of purchasers. Those other
232
purchasers paid less, on average, than retail pharmacies for the drugs in question. That finding is
consistent with the notion that purchasers are rewarded for their ability to influence the
prescription choice of a large patient base. For example, hospitals and clinics paid 9 percent less
than retail pharmacies in 1994, and HMOs paid 18 percent less. Federal facilities got the biggest
discount, over 40 percent, off the average invoice price paid by retail pharmacies.
That comparison is based on invoice prices only, which do not capture rebates and other types of
discounts that do not appear on an invoice. The size of the average price differences between
types of purchasers, and perhaps also the relative ranking of the no pharmacy purchasers, would
change if rebates and all forms of discounts were included. But as long as the excluded rebates
and discounts were not larger for retail pharmacies than for the other types of purchasers, on
average, then the conclusion drawn that customers of pharmacies without a managed drug
benefit pay the highest prices for brand-name drugs--would remain correct. Unfortunately, more
complete pricing data are not available.
Rebates are an important mechanism for lowering the average prices that manufacturers are paid
for prescription drugs bought through retail pharmacies. Since the invoice prices paid by
pharmacies do not include the rebates that PBMs and Medicaid receive, Table 4 probably
overstates the difference between the average prices that manufacturers earn for drugs channeled
through retail pharmacies and the average prices they earn for drugs channeled through other
types of purchasers.
Competition Between Brand-Name and Generic Drugs
One of the primary goals of the Hatch-Waxman Act was to increase the availability of lower-cost
generic drugs. Since the act became law in 1984, the market share of generic drugs has indeed
been rising steadily--although not all of that increase stems from the act. For drugs that come in
easily countable units, such as tablets and capsules, the share of generic units sold more than
doubled between 1984 and 1996--from 18.6 percent of all drug units sold to 42.6 percent.
Figure-2 Growth in the Market Share of Generic
233
Drugs Since 1984
SOURCE: Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America, 1997
Those numbers are probably the best publicly available estimate documenting the rise in generic
market share since 1984. However, since countable units do not include injectable drugs and
many types of prescription drugs dispensed in liquid form, they are not a perfect measure of
average generic market share. Many injectable drugs are dispensed primarily in hospitals and
other inpatient settings, so the estimate may under represent those channels of distribution.
Countable units appear to yield an estimate of generic market share similar to that measured by
the number of prescriptions dispensed through retail pharmacies.
The Hatch-Waxman Act encouraged the entry of generic drugs by establishing an abbreviated
approval process for generic versions of all no antibiotic drugs (antibiotics already had such a
process). In addition, the act reversed a 1984 court ruling and allowed generic manufacturers to
begin the tests required for FDA approval before the patent on the innovator drug they were
copying had expired. Those changes both increased the probability that a generic copy would
become available after patent expiration and reduced the average delay between patent expiration
and generic entry from more than three years to less than three months.
As generic drugs are substituted for their more expensive brand-name counterparts, the average
price of a prescription falls. In CBO's retail pharmacy data set, the average retail prescription
price for a brand-name drug with generic substitutes was $37 in 1994. However, including
prescriptions that were filled with a generic drug, the average prescription price for a multiple-
source drug was only $26. Thus, generic substitution lowered the average cost for a multiple-
234
source prescription by $11. That result is only a rough estimate, however, since prescriptions
may somewhat misrepresent the relative quantities of brand-name and generic drugs sold. For
example, if generic drugs tend to have more pills dispensed per prescription than their brand-
name counterparts, that estimate would understate the degree to which generic substitution
reduces the average cost of a prescription. If generic drugs tend to have fewer pills dispensed, the
reverse would be true.
Effect of Generic Entry on Brand-Name Prices
Those consumers who are more sensitive to price, or who are covered by health plans that
encourage generic substitution, are more likely to buy a generic drug when it becomes available.
As the more price-sensitive consumers switch to the generic version, demand for the original
brand-name drug declines and may become less sensitive to price. If that happens, the price of
the brand-name drug could theoretically rise more quickly over time than it would have without
generic competition.
A number of empirical studies have found that the prices of brand-name drugs continue to rise
faster than inflation after generic entry. One study also found that brand-name prices increase by
about 1 percent with each new generic competitor. At the same time, CBO's analysis shows that
discounts on brand-name drugs tend to increase after generic entry, something not fully captured
in the invoice prices on which the other empirical studies are based. CBO found that the best-
price discount is 10 to 17 percentage points greater when two or more generic manufacturers
produce copies of the brand-name drug. Taken together, the implication of those results is that
prices of brand-name drugs do rise faster than inflation for many final purchasers after generic
entry, but some purchasers pay less for those drugs after generic entry.
For 34 drugs that experienced generic competition for the first time after 1991, the average price
increase between 1991 and 1994 was 22 percent. By comparison, average prices for brand-name
drugs that faced no generic competition rose by 24.5 percent over that period. And the prices of
brand-name drugs that had already faced generic competition by 1991 grew by 22.4 percent
during the same period. (Apart from any effect of generic competition, that price increase for
multiple-source drugs could be lower because many of the drugs are older ones that have been
surpassed by newer treatments.) The differences in the rate of price increase among those three
groups of brand-name drugs are small and consistent with the notion that generic competition
does not have a large effect on brand-name prices for many purchasers.
235
Effect of Generic Competition on Total Costs for Prescription Drugs
Because generic drugs are priced much lower than their brand-name counterparts, they are a
source of substantial savings. According to CBO's data on retail pharmacy sales, the average
retail price of a prescription for a generic drug in 1994 was $17.40 (see Table 1). Multiple-source
brand-name drugs were twice as expensive--averaging $37.40 per prescription.
CBO estimates that if each generic prescription had been dispensed at the corresponding brand-
name price, purchasers of prescription drugs through retail pharmacies would have spent roughly
$8 billion to $10 billion more in 1994. Those figures were calculated as follows: CBO assumed
that all of the generic prescriptions dispensed in 1994 would have been filled with a higher-
priced brand-name drug if the generic drug was not available. Then the price difference between
the innovator and generic formulations of a given drug was multiplied by the number of generic
prescriptions dispensed for that drug. Adding together the results of those calculations for all of
the multiple-source drugs in the retail pharmacy data set yielded an estimate of $7 billion in
direct savings from retail purchases of generic drugs in the data set.
The sales data cover only 70 percent of the retail pharmacy market, however, although they may
cover more than 70 percent of generic drug sales through retail pharmacies since they include
nearly all of the 200 top-selling drugs that are dispensed primarily through pharmacies.
Assuming that the data set encompasses 70 percent to 90 percent of total generic sales, then
savings from all retail purchases of generic drugs through pharmacies would total approximately
$8 billion to $10 billion in 1994. Of course, retail pharmacies are not the only sellers of
prescription drugs. Since other channels (including hospitals, clinics, and mail-order pharmacies)
distribute around 40 percent of prescription drugs, the total savings from generic substitution
through all channels were most likely even greater than that amount.
That calculation entails a variety of assumptions and caveats. First, it assumes that the quantity
of prescriptions filled for a particular multiple-source drug does not increase because a lower-
priced generic has become available. If the number of prescriptions did increase, the calculation
would overstate the savings from generic entry. However, limited statistical evidence supports
the assumption that the quantity sold does not change. A study by Caves, Whinstone, and
Hurwitz found that the total amount sold of a drug in both generic and brand-name forms did not
increase after generic entry.
236
Second, the calculation is a rough one because the price per prescription, from which it is
derived, does not account for possible systematic differences between the size of brand-name and
generic prescriptions. The calculation would be more accurate--though much more
cumbersome--if the unit of measure was the cost of an average daily dose. But even that measure
contains problems, because the average daily dose can vary among people and among the
different medical conditions that a drug is used for. Without the ability to use a better measure,
the calculation relies on prescriptions as the unit of quantity to obtain a rough estimate of the
savings from generic substitution.
Other studies have also concluded that prices of generic drugs decline in response to increased
generic competition. Economist Richard Caves and colleagues found that as the number of
generic manufacturers increased from one to 10, the average generic price fell from 60 percent to
just 34 percent of the brand-name price. With 20 manufacturers, the generic price was only 20
percent of the brand-name price. Since generic prices tend to fall as the number of producers
rises, generic manufacturers are most profitable when they are one of the first to enter a market.
Market Concentration in the Generic Drug Industry
Overall, the generic drug market is not particularly concentrated. Mylan and Geneva, the largest
generic firms in 1994, accounted for 16 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of all generic sales
in the retail pharmacy data set. Most generic firms had just 1 percent to 5 percent of total generic
sales.
The markets for individual multiple-source drugs, by contrast, are much more concentrated. For
94 of 110 multiple-source drugs in the retail pharmacy data set, the top two generic firms were
responsible for more than half of generic sales. And for 57 of those drugs, the single top generic
firm accounted for more than half of generic sales.
Leading generic firms may lower their price when new competitors enter the market so as to
maintain their dominant position. That would explain how the average generic price falls as the
number of manufacturers rises, but sales of many generic drugs remain dominated by one or two
companies. Still, Grabowski and Vernon found that in only half of the 18 markets they
examined, the lowest-priced generic manufacturer had the largest market share. Factors other
than price, such as being the first to enter a market, probably also play a role in determining a
generic manufacturer's market share. And one recent study found that generic manufacturers are
237
more likely to enter markets where they have some experience with a drug's dosage form,
therapy, or active ingredient.
Links Between Generic and Brand-Name Manufacturers
Although the same company rarely produces both a brand-name drug and its generic copy, some
generic manufacturers are subsidiaries of brand-name firms. In 1994, eight of the 15 largest
generic companies in the retail pharmacy data set were owned by innovator firms. Those generic
subsidiaries were responsible for 46 percent of total generic sales in the data set.
Today, the proportion of generic drugs produced by subsidiaries of innovator firms is probably
somewhat smaller than in 1994 because several brand-name manufacturers have left the generic
drug business. For example, three of the eight larger generic firms owned by a brand-name
company (Rugby, Hamilton, and Warner-Chilcott) have been sold or disbanded in recent years.
Some of those brand-name companies experimented with producing generic copies of their own
drugs in the early 1990s and found that it was not very profitable. For example, generic
manufacturer Hamilton offered copies of the brand-name drugs Anaprox and Naprosyn produced
by its parent company, Syntex. During the first calendar year after patent expiration, the average
generic price quickly dropped, and Syntex lost 70 percent of its market for those two drugs to
generic competition. A few of the brand-name companies that tried to get further into the generic
business in the early 1990s, including Hoechst Marion Roussel and Merck, have recently sold
generic subsidiaries.
Nevertheless, brand-name companies that have long held generic subsidiaries remain committed
to their generic business. Today, at least 13 manufacturers of innovator drugs have a generic
subsidiary or division (see Table 6). One of the largest generic firms, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, is
a subsidiary of Novartis (a company formed by the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz).
Most generic subsidiaries do not produce copies of their parent company's drugs. Out of 112
multiple-source drugs in the retail pharmacy data set, only 13 had a generic subsidiary of the
brand-name manufacturer selling more than 10 percent of the prescriptions dispensed through
retail pharmacies. In general, the incentives to lower price in order to gain market share are the
same for all generic manufacturers, whether or not they are the subsidiary of an innovator firm.
But an important exception occurs when the generic subsidiary produces a copy of the parent
company's innovator drug. Though infrequent, in such cases the subsidiary may have less
238
incentive to lower price than other generic producers because it does not want to take more sales
away from the parent company's drug. And when the generic subsidiary does lower price
dramatically, the innovator firm suffers.
(C)Contagious disease
A contagious disease is a subset category of infectious diseases (or communicable diseases),
which are easily transmitted by physical contact (hence the name-origin) with the person
suffering the disease, or by their secretions or objects touched by them.
The contagious category of infectious/communicable diseases usually require a special mode of
transmission between hosts. These include need for intermediate vector species (such as a
mosquito for yellow fever), direct blood contact (such as transfusion or needle-sharing), or
sexual contact (examples are AIDS and hepatitis B).
Changes expected in the pharmaceuticals market due to contagious diseases
1. As a consequence of a series of measures that deregulated the pharmaceutical market at the
beginning of the 1990s, by 2004 a structure was in place in which 50% of the products
corresponded to "branded generic" drugs, 33% which correspond to "INN generic" drugs sold
under their scientific international nonproprietary name, and 17% to "original" brand name
drugs. In terms of sales, above all in volume, in general there has been a sustained growth in
generic medicines.
2. The changes in intellectual property rules due to contagious diseases that are being negotiated
in the FTA will have a direct impact on the pharmaceuticals market, principally affecting the
generic brands because by increasing the number of originals that cannot be copied (and their
protection period), it will swiftly decrease the relative importance of generic brands in the
market.
3. Through important changes in prices due to contagious disease, there will be significant
changes in the structure of the current pharmaceuticals market. It is expected that by the end of
the thirteenth year, 69% of the market will correspond to "original" brand-name drugs, 20% to
"branded generic" drugs and 11% to "INN generic" drugs.
4. The "original" brand-name medicines are targeted for consumption by those with mid- or
high-level purchasing power and eventually for ESSALUD [Peruvian public health insurance
239
system]. They have all the formal distribution channels and obtain a high degree of brand
fidelity, using different marketing and promotion strategies to increase demand.
Generic medicines for contagious disease sold under their scientific name only gain access to this
circuit with a great deal of difficulty and concentrate their sales in the public sector.
5. In recent years an average of 30 previously unregistered active principles are registered
annually. This represents approximately a third of the new active principles that appear in the
world. Although a large number of these active principles are no longer patentable, they would
be able to obtain test data protection.
Changes expected in the price of medicines due to contagious diseases
6. The characteristics of the pharmaceuticals market has meant that prices of drugs for
contagious diseases in the country are higher than those in other countries in the region and even
in Europe. In some cases the price differential surpasses 800%.
7. As a result of the FTA, in the first year the price of the "original medicines" could increase by
12.5%, the “branded generics” could increase by 4.3%, and the “INN generics” by 0.7%. By
years 7 and 13, the former would increase by 72% and 132%, respectively, the second by 22%
and 37% and the latter 4.4% and 7.7%.
Expected changes in access to medicines for contagious diseases
8. Approximately a third of the population in the country does not have access to essential
medicines for contagious diseases. Coverage overall is very low for some diseases where lack of
access has serious repercussions for life expectancy and quality of living, such as diabetes,
hypertension, schizophrenia, AIDS and cancer.
9. As a result of the FTA, it is estimated that in the first five years after implementation, between
700,000 and 900,000 people will be excluded each year from receiving medicines if the Health
Ministry and ESSALUD budgets or the income of the poorest households do not improve. By the
sixth year, coverage is expected to improve due to the more intensive use of "INN generics."
However, this does not take into account therapeutic innovations.
Impact on household spending and the budget for medicines of contagious diseases
10. Household spending makes up 70% of purchases in the pharmaceuticals market (1.6 billion
soles a year) and the Health Ministry and ESSALUD make up the remaining 30%.
The impact of the FTA on expenditures for health coverage is expected to principally affect
household budgets.
240
11. As a result of the inclusion of test data protection in the FTA, an impact is expected in the
first year equivalent to US$34.4 million of additional spending. Of that total, US$29 million will
be assumed by families (increased out-of-pocket spending) while the difference will be assumed
by the Health Ministry and ESSALUD. Between years 7 and 13, additional spending will be in
the range of US$130 million to $170 million.
Effectiveness of the exoneration of tariffs and sales tax on medicines for contagious diseases
12. In a sample of 200 medicines to treat cancer that are sold in Peru it was observed that the
exoneration of the payment of tariffs and sales tax not only failed to reduce the price of oncology
medicines, but allowed companies to obtain extraordinary earnings of US$1 million a year as of
2002.
13. It was hoped that removing tariffs and sales tax would lead to a reduction of at least 20% in
the final price of medicines to treat cancer. This was only observed in 8% of the products, 19%
did not modify their price and 23% increased it.
Epidemiological trends in the context of the FTA
14. The projections for the next two decades show an increase in the majority of the known
highly contagious diseases. Although these illnesses touch all socioeconomic groups, the poor
are the most affected due to their vulnerability.
15. In the case of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, it is estimated that the number of cases could
be reduced if health programs have adequate coverage and are effective.
16. Regarding illnesses such as tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS, where traditional medications
are increasingly less effective, and patients must periodically change to using new
pharmacological technologies. Due to the effect of the FTA on the price of medicines, this will
be delayed or will not take place, with the foreseeable consequences.
241
CHAPTER-8 ETHICS RELATED TO LIFESAVING DRUGS
India has a booming drug industry and has contributed to making generics at low prices worldwide.
We are rightly proud of this. But medicines within India are overpriced and unaffordable, a glaring
silent violation of human rights, that gives sleepless nights to many patients leading eventually to
their misery and penury.
The margins in medicines are extremely high often reaching 1000-4000 percent. More “players” have
not resulted in lower prices of medicines or for that matter lower cost of health services. Demand is
supplier induced. The health market creates and promotes wants.
Drug Prices and Affordability:
How affordable are India’s “low-priced” medicines for the people of India? Let us look at these
facts:
Cost of medicines for multi-drug resistant TB (maintenance phase) is equivalent to 737
days of daily wage of a wage laborer in India.
Daily wages is Rs 90/- average
Coronary heart disease: 209 days of wage labor
Prevention of Hepatitis A: 30 days of wage labor
Iron deficiency anemia (using Dexorange): Rs. 3,744 for 6 months.
Coronary artery disease: Rs.12,541 per year (using the expensive brands).
Diabetes using oral glimepiride 2 mg: Rs. 3660 per year.
Drug resistant TB: > Rs.100,000 for 2 years.
An unskilled worker in US or UK needs to work for 10 minutes to buy 10 tablets of
Paracetamol
In India a daily wage worker will have to work at least one hour.
And our Paracetamol is one of the cheapest in the world!
To say some drugs cost less than a cup of tea, and therefore should not be price regulated, is a travesty.
In many cases medicines are to be taken several times a day and for many conditions at a time. No
doctor prescribes a single medicine. Again some medicines are taken for months and years together.
Many cups of tea in urban areas are Rs 2 and more per cup! As we show above forget tea, not even a
square meal a day is affordable.
242
Cost of Treatment with Biotechnology-based Drugs
Abciximab (antianginal, Eli Lily): Rs. 39,480 for a 60 kg man per day
Epoeitin alfa (Wepox/Wockhardt, Treatment of anemia of chronic renal failure): Rs. 10,200 for
8 weeks for a 60 kg man AND
Rs. 1912 to 11475 per week for a 60 kg man thereafter
Interferon alpha-2a (Roferan-A/Nicholas Piramal)used in types of leukemia: Initial therapy
costs of Rs. 43,552- Rs 1,30,656 then maintenance therapy costs of Rs. 1,06,158- Rs.3,18,474
(6-18 months tt cost)
Etanercept (Enbrel/Wyeth) –in severe arthiritis: Rs. 18,131 per week of therapy which has to be
taken long term.
price of Glivec, an anti-cancer drug:
Novartis: Rs1,30,000 per month
Price of Indian generic equivalence: Rs 10,000 per month
What is the extent of overpricing? We give below a comparison of prices of LOCOST Baroda, a
small scale Schedule M certified manufacturer and the market.
Table-1
Name of Drug Use LOCOST
selling prices
per tab (Rs)
Market selling
prices per tab
(Rs)
Albendazole
400 mg
For worms Rs 1.10 Rs 9 to 12
Amlodipine 5
mg
In high blood
pressure and as
antianginal
Re 0.25 Rs 1.40 to 5.00
Atenolol 50 mg In high blood
pressure and as
antianginal
Re 0.20 Rs 4 to 22
Enalapril 5 mg In high blood
pressure mild to
moderate
Re 0.30 Rs 1.60 to Rs
2.30
Fluconazole Fungal Rs 3.50 Rs 28 to Rs 32
243
150 mg
Infections in
AIDs and other
conditions
Cetrizine Anitallergic Re 0.20 Re 0.50 to Rs
3.00
Source of Prices: Circa 2008 from MIMS/CIMS et al.
Market Failure and the Pharma Market in India
In markets where competition works, the most bought is the cheapest brand. Many producers
bring down prices. Sellers and buyers are equally well-informed about the product before making
a purchase decision.
Let us review some facts about the pharma industry in India.
Competition does not work in India’s pharma formulations market. The notion of a free
market in pharma and health services is a contradiction in terms (see Table 1 below).
However India’s pharma sector is a “free” market in a different sense for a long time: one
could make all kinds of irrational medicines from fresh human placenta, animal liver and
cattle blood as also arbitrary combinations of different kinds of medicines and sell them
at arbitrarily high prices.
In India, the same drug is sold at vastly different prices by equally reputed companies and
often by the same company.
Brand leader is often the price and volume leader! That is the most popular brand of a
drug is also often the highest priced.(In terms of cars, this means a majority buys
Mercedes and not Maruti 800.)
Medicines are the only commodity in which the end-user (the paying patient) does not decide
what to buy and at what cost. The doctor prescribes and the patient pays. In addition, in India
every doctor decides on his/her own which brand of which medicine to prescribe.
There is no choice for the consumer in the medicines market. Unlike in case of other
commodities the purchaser of medicines is extremely vulnerable at the time of making a
decision to purchase a medicine - he/she is seeking immediate relief from suffering.
These asymmetries in information - that is unequal information that does not help the patient in
making an informed, considered choice - in the doctor-drug company interface as much as in the
244
doctor-patient and drug company-patient, is what leads to market failure. This special nature of
the pharma sector is the reason why even in market economies, all issues related to medicines
including their prices are the subject of regulation by their Governments. The only exception is
the USA – even in the USA the prices of medicines are indirectly regulated by health
maintenance organizations negotiating prices to be paid on prescription costs. (The
Government’s own committees have reported that even in the so-called free market countries
there is price control of some kind or the other.)
Pharma is the only sector in India (and probably in the world) where government tender
procurement prices are 1-3% of the retail market prices! This if anything indicates the level of
overpricing. An example: for the Tamil Nadu Government, a drug company bids to supply
Albendazole 400 mg tablets, a medicine for worms, at a mere 35 paisa per tablet, while brands
of this drug sell for Rs.12/- in the market.
India’s pharma markets are full of unnecessary, unscientific and therapeutically useless drugs.
This leads to further market distortion and market failure -apart from adding to the cost of
prescriptions and complications in health recovery. We need to immediately weed out all these
medicines by allowing only medicines as per the WHO essential drug list (March 2007).
If one studies the ORG-Nielsen list of top-selling 300 medicines accounting for more than Rs
35,000 crores sales (almost 90 percent of the retail market), at least 60 percent of the top-selling
300 medicines are not in the NLEM. Therefore 2/3rds of medicines sold in India are not essential
medicines by the Government’s own definition.
Table 2: A Glimpse of the ‘Free’ Market of Branded Medicines - What happens
when there is no price regulation?
Sl.
No
.
Name of Drugs Drug
Under
price
contro
l
Lowest Price of Brand
in Rupees/Brand
Name/ Manufacturer
Highest Price of
Brand in
Rupees/Brand
Name/
Manufacturer
Highest
priced
brand/lowe
st priced
brand x 100
Medicines for bacterial infections: like pneumonia, urinary tract infections
1.
Ofloxacin 200
mg
No Rs. 3.20/Zo/FDC Rs 31.00/
Tarivid/Aventis
969%
2. Levofloxacin No Rs. Rs 95.0/Tavanic/ 1392%
245
500 mg 6.82/Levoflox,/Cipla Aventis
3. Ciprofloxacin
500 mg
Yes Rs. 3.90/
Zoxan/FDC
Rs. 8.90/
Cifran/Ranbaxy
228%
4.
Azithromycin25
0 mg
No Rs 8.50/Zathrin, FDC Rs.39.14/
Vicon/Pfizer
460%
Medicines Used in Viral Infections including HIV/AIDS
5. Zidovudine 100
mg
No Rs. 7.70/Zidovir/Cipla Rs. 20.40/Retrovir/
GSK
265%
Medicines Used in Heart Disease, Hypertension, High Cholesterol
6. Amlodipine
5 mg
No Rs.
1.51/Amlodac/Zydus
Cadila
Rs.
6.00/Amlogard/
Pfizer
397%
7. Atenolol
50 mg
No Rs. 0.40/Ziblok,/FDC Rs. 2.45/Tenormin/
Nicholas Piramal
612%
8. Valsartan
80 mg
No Rs.
5.90/Valzaar/Torrent
Rs. 41.00/Diovan/
Novartis
694%
Medicines Used in Diabetes
9. Pioglitazone 15
mg
No Rs. 0.99/Pio/Systopic Rs 6.00/Piozone/
Nicholas Piramal
606%
10. Glimepride
1 mg
No Rs. 0.80/
Glimestar/Discovery/
Mankind
Rs 5.30/Amaryl/
Aventis
696%
Medicines Used in Cancer
11. Tamoxifen
10 mg
No Rs. 2.70/Tamodex/
Biochem
Rs.
20.00/Nolvadex/
ICI
741%
12. Letrozole
2.5 mg
No Rs.
9.90/Oncolet/Biochem
Rs. 181.50/
Femara/Novartis
1833%
Medicines for Psychiatric Ailments
13. Risperidone
2 mg
No. Rs.1.69/Respidon/
Torrent
Rs.
27.00/Risperdal/
1598%
246
Ethnor
Medicines for Metabolic Disorders
14. Risedronate
35 mg
No Rs 50.12/Risofos/Cipla Rs500.00/Actonel/
Aventis
997 %
Medicines for Arthritis
15. Leflunomide 10
mg
No Rs 8.00/Rumalet/Zydus
Cadila
Rs
44.00/Arava/Avent
is
550%
Medicines for Erectile Dysfunction
16. Sildenafil
citrate100 mg
No Rs 29.16/
Penegra/Zydus Alidac
Rs 584.00/
Viagra/Pfizer
2002%
Source of prices: Dr Anurag Bhargava, JSS Bilaspur and CIMS/MIMS 2007issues
Drug Pricing Policy over the Years
Administrative pricing systems for medicines were initiated in 1962, in the wake of the Chinese
aggression and the declaration of emergency in 1962. The Defense of India Act was invoked to
curb the spiraling prices of medicines. The Drugs (Display of Prices) Order 1962 and the Drugs
(Control of Prices) Order 1963 were promulgated. These orders had the effect of freezing prices
of medicines as of 1st April 1963. Further attempts to regulate prices were made through the
Drugs Prices (Display & Control) Order 1966; the Drugs (Prices Control) Order 1970
promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (ECA); the Drug (Prices Control)
Order 1979 based on the Drug Policy 1978 – the latter policy was an outcome of the landmark
Hathi Committee Report of 1975. The thrust of its 224 recommendations was to re-emphasize
the leading role for the public sector, the setting up of a National Drug Authority, preference to
Indian Sector over the foreign sector, indigenous production of raw materials, selective price
control on prices of medicines etc. However it is probably the Patent Act 1970 that has had the
greatest effect on lowering drug prices and making India’s Pharma industry largely a force to
reckon with.
Price controls, after DPCO 1979, have been systematically reduced over the years (see Table1
“Comparative Chart Summarizing Price Control Scheme under Various Drug Price Control Orders”).
Industry did not, and does not, like controls and indeed a major part of the problem was the way price
controls were administered. Also since the nineties, there has been a significant paradigm change
247
among policy makers in their view of business and industry. Economic reforms have meant the
welcome removal of the license-quota-permit Raj. There was hope that the attendant corruption would
go. With liberalization, there has been a gradual dilution of the role of the Government even in sectors
like health and education, with the naïve hope that the market would take care of the situation. Price
control has remained, albeit in a diluted form, and it was the stated aim of the Pharmaceutical Policy of
2002 (henceforth PP 2002) to reduce the “rigors of price control”. It was widely expected by industry
that about 30 to 34 medicines alone would remain under price control.
Table 3: Comparative Chart Summarizing Price Control Scheme under Various Drug Price
Control Orders
DPCO
1979
DPCO
1987
DPCO
1995
March
2008
1 No of medicines under Price Control347 142 76 74
2 No. of categories under which the
above
medicines were categorized
3 2 1 1
3 MAPE % allowed on normative/
National exfactory costs to meet
Post-manufacturing expenses and to
Provide for margin to the mfrs.
Category I
Category II
Category III
(Single ingredient Leader products)
40%
55%
100 %
75%
100%
N.A.
100%
N.A.
N.A.
100 %
4 Total Domestic pharma sales 90 % 70 % 50 % --
248
covered under Price-Control
(Approx)
Sources: Dr Anurag Bhargava, JSS Bilaspur and CIMS/MIMS 2007issues
Drug Price Control in Other Countries
Even the so-called free market countries of the EU and UK have some form of controls – price
controls, volume controls and cost-effectiveness controls. Twelve out of 16 West European countries
control prices of medicines directly. On the contrary, it appears, Indian policy makers are intent on
throwing out the baby with the drug price control basket.
In fact, price regulation of medicines is the norm all over the world, except the USA, which
unfortunately India is trying to emulate. Even in USA, drug companies and health insurance
companies always negotiate prices. But the system excludes large numbers of the poor and
especially makes medicines costly for the elderly.i One in three non-elderly Americans -- 74.7
million -- was without health coverage for all or part of 2001-2002.
UK has its Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. All European Union (EU) countries have a
form of price regulation. In setting prices, these countries use therapeutic comparators and the
price of products in other EU markets. Denmark, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
Portugal, and Sweden set a maximum price in relation to prices in neighboring countries.
Belgium, France, and Italy set prices in relation to relative cost, prices elsewhere in the EU, and
the contribution made to the national economy. In Austria, France, and Spain there are volume-
cost and other rebate schemes. Spain and the United Kingdom set their prices to ensure a rate of
return within a particular profit range.
Canada has a Patented Medicines Prices Review Board, France has a Transparency Commission
and Economic Committee on Medicines, Egypt has all medicines under price control, Italy has
restricted wholesale margins, Germany has its reference pricing system. Some system of price
monitoring and price regulation prevails in Japan, Netherlands, China, Indonesia, Colombia, etc.
In some of these countries, drug pricing is tied with national health system reimbursements and
or insurance schemes. In response to these measures, big pharma lobbies like Pharma scream
“Foreign price and access controls on pharmaceuticals distort and inhibit International Trade”
and want the US Government to “take action”, meaning twist arms in other ways. Indeed, it is
worth pondering, how come all the developed free market economies do not have a free market
249
with respect to pricing of medicines? And the drug companies there fund their R & D from
sales!
In the absence of universal free access to health insurance and/or meaningful price controls, in
India, the havoc on the majority of the population can well be imagined
Total decontrol, or even a semblance of it, as desired by free marketers, is going to the other extreme
and has had, and will have, deleterious effects on not only the poor, but on even the middle class of
India.
Anomalies in Pricing Policies
In fact, the Report of Drug Price Control Review Committee of the Government of India had noted: In
most other countries, the regulation of the drug prices is considered necessary to contain public
expenditure due to government’s role in funding social health and insurance schemes that cover
hospital and out-patient drugs. The price regulations are used as an instrument to keep their health
budgets within reasonable limits. In these countries, a substantial proportion of the population is
covered through health insurance and public health schemes. As a result, the consumers are not
affected directly by the high prices of medicines or high costs of medical services, but are made to pay
for the increased prices/cost through high insurance premium. As opposed to this, a substantial
proportion of the population in India is market dependent and has to meet all their expenses out of
their own pocket on this account, making price regulation of pharmaceutical products in the market
unavoidable.
Nevertheless in actual behavior the Government has chosen to ignore the above advice (and
many such more recent advices) as evidenced most recently by its intentions to “lessen the rigors
of price control” in Pharmaceutical Policy 2002. The 2002 Policy itself is riddled with illogic as
pointed out in a Supreme Court Petition by AIDAN and others. Briefly, PP 2002 and all
previous policies (except possibly the first one in 1978) have some common problems: the
turnover-based, market share criteria chosen to keep medicines in and out of price control tend to
be faulty and lead to anomalies:
Most essential and useful medicines are kept out of price control.
Non-essential and harmful medicines like anal gin, phenylbutazone, Vitamin E,
sulphadimidine, mebhydrolin, diosmine panthonate and panthenols, bacampicilin, etc is
under price control.
250
Medicines for HIV/AIDS, cancer, hypertension, coronary artery disease, multidrug
resistant tuberculosis, diabetes, iron deficiency anemia, ORS, tetanus, filariasis,
vaccines (new) for rabies, hepatitis B, sera for use in tetanus, diphtheria, Rh
isoimmunisation, anticonvulsants and antiepileptics, diptheria, snake bite, suspected rabid
dog bite/rabies, etc. fall outside price control (See boxes below).
Price control, since it is based on market share criteria, produces only partial regulation.
Chloroquine for malaria would be under price control but not equally important other
anti-malarials. True also leprosy medicines and analgesics.
Of the 300 top selling brands in the ORG Nielsen list of October 2003, only 36 (that is
only 12 percent) were price controlled
The rest, that is 88 percent, were not.
There is also a tremendous divergence in the goals of the Pharmaceutical Policy 2002 and the National
Health Policy 2002. The former seems to address the needs of the drug industry lobby while the latter
is more focused on the real health problems of the country. A tragic dichotomy with the people
suffering as a result, a case of the left hand (Chemicals and Fertilizer Ministry) of the Government not
concerned with the right hand (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare).
The Report of the Standing Committee on Chemicals & Fertilizers, 2005-06, Fourteenth Lok
Sabha observes:
The Committee’s examination revealed that though, there is a provision that a strict watch will
be kept on the movement of the prices and the Government may determine the ceiling levels
beyond which increase in prices would not be permissible, this provision has seldom been
applied. In this context, some of the State Governments have also informed that when the cases
of high prices of Anti-cancer drugs, Antibiotics, Nutraceuticals and Cetrizine were referred to the
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), the latter conveyed its helplessness in
curtailing the high prices. The Committee are unhappy over this unsatisfactory state of affairs
and desire that the situation should be remedied forthwith. They therefore, recommend that for
the category of medicines for the same therapeutic use, the Government should determine a
reasonable ceiling beyond which increase in prices may not be allowed.
Recommendations of Other Expert Committees
Several other expert committees set up by the Government of India, in post-liberalization times,
have also stressed the importance of drug price regulation. For instance: the Drug Price Control
251
Review Committee of 1999, the Sandhu Committee of 2004, and a Task Force appointed by the
PMO in 2005 and chaired by Dr. Pronab Sen from the Planning Commission, the Commission
on Macroeconomics and Health 2004, etc. However industry does not want controls of any kind
and in accordance with the wishes of the pharma industry, the number of medicines in the price
control basket has come down over the years from over 347 in 1979 to 74 in 1995 – it would
have been less than 30 if the Pharmaceutical Policy 2002 were not stayed by the Supreme Court.
The Court directed the Government of India to first decide the basket of essential medicines to be
put under price regulation and a methodology thereof.
Task Force Report Recommends Ceiling Prices on Formulations:
The Government of India appointed a Task Force chaired by Pronab Sen, Principal Adviser at
the Planning Commission, “to Explore Options other than Price Control for Achieving the
Objective of Making Available Life-saving Drugs at Reasonable Prices”. The Task Force
submitted its report in September 2005 and if implemented they should alleviate many of the
gross distortions in drug pricing.
The Task Force recommended that the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2003
should form the basis of drugs for price control/monitoring:
To support the process the Government should announce the ceiling price of all drugs contained
in the NLEM on the basis of the weighted average price of the top three brands by value of
single ingredient formulations prevailing in the market as on 1.4.2005. In cases where there are
less than three brands, the average of all existing brands would be taken. The ORG-IMS data
can be used for this purpose initially with a retail margin of 20%. For drugs, which are not
reflected in ORG-IMS data, the NPPA should prepare the necessary information based on market
data collection. In the case of formulations, which involve a combination of more than one drug
in the NLEM, the ceiling price would be the weighted average of the applicable ceiling prices of
its constituents. Excise duty should continue to be payable on the actual MRP of the individual
medicines. In the case of drugs not contained in the NLEM, intensive monitoring should be
carried out, for any new formulations based on existing APIs (Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients), manufacturer concerned would be required to submit its intended price along with
application for marketing approval to the regulator, which would be granted only if the indicated
price is consistent with relevant ceiling price. The NLEM should be revised every three years.
252
Price Regulation: Against TRIPS?
TRIPS is silent on Price Control
Doha Declaration and Art 7 (Objectives) and Art 8 (Principles) of TRIPS assert members
right to protect public health over and above TRIPS/WTO
“Each member has the right to grant CL and freedom to determine grounds upon which
such licenses are granted.” (Doha Declaration)
Trade cannot be given primacy in comparison to health and human rights.
One of the grounds for issue of Compulsory Licenses according to the Patents Act of
India is when the patented medicine is “not available to the public at reasonably
affordable price”
The African AIDS pandemic has drawn international aid organizations, governments and
pharmaceutical companies into a global debate on whether rich countries should pay more for
drugs than less developed nations.
This system of differential pricing makes sense on social-justice and economic grounds, but it is
difficult to administer in the real world, experts told a Wharton conference on Pharmaceutical
Innovation in the Global Economy.
From an economic standpoint, differential pricing promises to be the magic bullet that helps
square the circle of policy objectives. Under this pricing system, wealthy nations underwrite the
bulk of costly research and development for new drugs while poorer countries pay for just the
cost often only pennies a pill of making the drugs they use. Differential pricing among countries
in Europe has been common practice for years.
For the system to expand and benefit patients in developing countries, pharmaceutical companies
must be able to maintain patent protection. Patent protection allows manufacturers to charge
premium prices to pay for new drug development, although many patient advocates contend the
scope of the developing AIDS crisis warrants suspension of patent rights so that generic
manufacturers can make low-cost copies.
253
Manufacturers also need assurances that low-priced products will not find their way back into
high-priced markets, thereby reducing demand and prices in those markets. In other words, there
must be no spillover effect.
Differential pricing will not solve the problem of financing research into diseases that plague
poorer nations for which there is no market in the developed world, Some public subsidies need
to be available to make that happen. A strong argument can be made for differential pricing on
the basis that it would provide more efficient use of existing drugs. This is possible because so
much of the cost of a drug, at least 30%, is tied up in the initial research. The cost of actually
producing the medicine itself is very small. If differential pricing allows people to consume
products at their marginal cost, there is no harm to people in high-income countries.
Although there is the sense in the United States that this is unfair, the reality is that if
[differential pricing] opens up markets, the people in the affected countries are better off and we
are no worse off, noting that differential pricing should not be viewed as cost-shifting. The cost
of research and development of a drug should be considered a joint cost, not attributable to
specific countries. If poor countries pay any amount over manufacturing costs, prices in high-
income countries could be less.
Meanwhile, as the discussion about differential pricing heats up, market segmentation is
breaking down. In Europe, differential pricing has existed for some time, although the pricing
spreads are not as wide as those being discussed in connection with the developing world.
The biggest threat to differential pricing in the United States, is legislation that would allow the
re-importation, or parallel import, of drugs made in the United States and sold in other countries
for less than their U.S. price. Already, informal markets have been established as U.S. residents
order drugs from Canada and Mexico.
In addition to physical cross-border leakage, countries undermine the economic basis for
differential pricing if they use prices charged in foreign markets as a reference for their own
price negotiations.
254
The reference may not even be direct. For example, if Brazil references to South Africa and
Mexico references to Brazil, U.S. customers who point to Mexican prices are actually arguing
for South African prices. What is needed is the willingness of high- and middle-income countries
to ban parallel imports and referencing. If governments cannot provide credible promises to
cease parallel imports and referencing, the private sector could look to rebates, or other business
practices, outside the view of government.
One problem, however, is that even in developing countries there is often a subset of rich people
who can pay full price. There needs to be some ability to do some segmentation in those
developing countries. The easiest way is to do it by private and public sector.
GlaxoSmithKline Robert Humenrick whose company is one of the largest manufacturers of
HIV/AIDS drugs and vaccines pointed to the many barriers that exist to providing treatment to
people in the developing world, including inadequate healthcare delivery systems. We don’t
believe the issue is purely a price issue, he said, adding that GlaxoSmithKline has been involved
in differential pricing schemes since the 1980s with vaccines and in the late 1990s with drugs for
HIV/AIDS. The company has 116 programs in 50 countries.
Humenrick, too, cited obstacles that hinder differential pricing. First, he said, differential prices
must be sustainable. This means setting prices that meet our costs and assuring we can sustain a
high quality of products for as long as needed. He also said that if rich countries reference lower
prices in the developing world during their own price negotiations, that will undoubtedly
undermine the industry’s willingness to extend differential pricing across the developing world.
Less developed countries also have responsibilities to make the scheme work, said Humenrick.
Countries must be vigilant in ensuring that drugs marked for use in a poor country are not resold
into more developed countries at a profit. In early October European news agencies reported that
$18 million in GlaxoSmithKline low-priced AIDS drugs destined for Africa were diverted to
Europe.
Towse, director of the Office of Health Economics in London, discussed a working document by
the European Commission that outlined policy on differential pricing and access to
pharmaceuticals.
255
One helpful aspect of the commission’s report, he suggested, is that it dismisses the differences
in terms used to describe differential pricing, such as equity pricing, variable pricing, tiered
pricing, or simply, discounts. The commission says, let’s not get hung up on what we call it.
What we are talking about is prices that are close to the cost of production that can be sustained.
REGULATION OF PRICES
There is a legitimate fear that with the introduction of product patents in India, the prices of
existing drugs which get covered under patents will tend to rise sharply. In the case of new
patented drugs, the prices are likely to be high ab initio, In addition, essential drugs which are
not covered under the Drugs Prices Control Order (DPCO) could also display rising prices if
market dominance exists or comes into existence over time. It is, therefore, imperative that a
mechanism be established whereby the government can monitor the prices of drugs on an on-
going basis and either impose price control or call the manufacturers in for negotiations if there
are any untoward or unjustified price increases. There is a point of view that holds that price
regulations are not necessary for drugs and that competition should be able to provide the
necessary discipline. The Task Force does not entirely agree with this point of view on the
grounds that any sector in which consumer sovereignty is abridged for any reason needs to be
regulated. As has been argued in the previous chapter, there is little, if any, consumer
sovereignty in the pharmaceuticals sector.
The first, and most important, point that needs to be noted in this connection is that no price
negotiation mechanism can be effective unless there is a credible threat of price controls being
imposed and enforced. Therefore, the DPCO or its equivalent must continue to exist with
adequate provision for imposing price control as and when deemed necessary in public interest.
It is also essential that the principles underlying price controls and/or negotiations be clearly
articulated and benchmarks established.
Shortcomings of the Existing Price Control Mechanism
In so far as price control legislation is concerned, the present situation is far from satisfactory.
Since the DPCO is issued under the Essential Commodities Act (ECA), the only real penal
provision available under it is prosecution leading to imprisonment. While criminal action and
imprisonment is appropriate for controlling production and sale of spurious and sub-standard
drugs or for deliberate hoarding, it is excessively draconian for pricing issues. On the other
hand, it is not even entirely clear whether this provision can at all be applied to corporate, since a
256
body corporate cannot be imprisoned and neither can its functionaries unless specific provisions
to this effect exist in the law.
Moreover, the provisions requiring manufacturers to provide their pricing data for regular
monitoring under the ECA, or the DPCO, are not effective. Although the DPCO does provide
for regular submission of price lists and other details, it is mainly observed in the breach.
Consequently, monitoring compliance of price control orders involves market surveys, which are
both tardy and expensive.
The present basis and methodology for imposition of direct price controls also need to be
considered afresh. The existing system is based on criteria relating to turnover and market
dominance in specific APIs, and is implemented through detailed examination of cost structures
of manufacturers. Both these need to be reconsidered.
In the first instance, it is not clear how much distortion is caused by selecting individual APIs for
price control from within a wider therapeutic segment rather than the therapeutic class itself.
Second, the choice of the API on the basis of turnover is questionable since, as has been argued,
it simply ignores market dynamics, on the one hand, and may not reflect the ‘essentiality’ of the
drug, on the other. As things stand, for instance, of the 74 drugs presently under price control
(about 10% of total APIs in the country), only 15 are present in the National List of Essential
Medicines (NLEM), which is just over 4% of the total number of drugs in the NLEM. It is not
clear, therefore, what purpose is being served by such price controls, except to hold down the
prices of a few drugs.
An effective drug price control system should be more strategic in nature. It should select APIs
which are essential in some sense and will have the maximum cascading effect on the entire
therapeutic class. More often than not, these will be the newer drugs on the market which may
not, and in fact probably will not, have the highest turnover, but will display high degree of
market concentration.
Fixing prices on the basis of costs is both intrusive as well as prone to manipulation. Often this
may be inescapable, but a preferable alternative would be to determine controlled prices on the
basis of benchmarks. The price of the closest therapeutic alternative existing in the market
readily suggests itself as an option, and the main consideration then becomes the extent of the
margin that would be permitted. This of course presumes that therapeutic equivalence has been
257
established, and systems would need to be in place for doing so. There would, however, be a
problem with ‘blockbuster’ drugs for which no therapeutic equivalent may be available.
The main weaknesses of the current DPCO, however, lie elsewhere. First, it is overly focused on
the bulk drug, for which detailed costing and price fixation is done. The prices of formulations
are determined on a more ad hoc basis based on the price fixed for the bulk drug. As a
consequence, its impact falls disproportionately on the bulk drug manufacturer, and there is
evidence of several bulk drugs going out of production because of such price controls. This is
detrimental to the interests of all stake-holders. Equally importantly, since the bulk drug
manufacturer is constrained to sell at a fixed price, he is likely to always give preference to an
existing buyer rather than to a potential new entrant. This constrains the emergence of new
companies and formulations in the price-controlled segment and is inherently anti-competitive.
Second, since the controlled prices of formulations of a particular API are determined on a
“lowest common denominator” basis, they tend to be clustered within a narrow band. This
allows virtually no space for a new entrant to come in at an uncovered price point. As a result,
production activity and competition in the product segment tend to stagnate.
Third, the experience in recent years has been that circumventing price controls is extremely
easy through non-standard combinations, strengths, and other such innovations. In addition,
there is a tendency for prescriptions to move away from controlled drugs to non-controlled drugs
in the same therapeutic class. The consequence on the quality of treatment is not known, but it is
almost certain that the consumers end up buying higher priced products.
On the positive side, Para 10(b) of the DPCO, 1995 empowers the government to impose price
controls even on non-scheduled drugs, which has been used quite effectively through a price
monitoring system currently in place. The guideline used for this purpose is a permissible price
increase of up to 20% on an annualized basis. Although this provision has not really been used,
there is evidence that its presence has moderated the pace of price increases in drugs. However,
a permissible annual increase of 20% leaves open the possibility of drug prices doubling every 4
years, which is clearly not in the interest of the country.
Thus, in its present form, the DPCO is not very effective either in its coverage or in subserving
its intent, or in terms of its broader impact on encouraging production of essential drugs and
promoting a competitive framework. The only purpose the DPCO may serve at present is to
control the pricing of the scheduled drugs, and to instill a sense of fear which may have a limited
258
impact on the pace of price increases in the drug industry. In such a situation, there is a
compelling case for providing an alternative system and legislation which could serve the
purpose without taking recourse to extreme measures. The objective of such an alternative
regulatory framework should be to ensure sufficient space for competitive forces to play their
role without running the risk of a systemic rise in prices. It is also necessary to reconsider the
monitoring and enforcement provisions so that they are effective without being draconian. There
are a number of alternative penalties that can be thought of, such as fines, compounding of
offences, temporary or permanent withdrawal of production or distribution licences, etc:
Alternative System of Price Regulation
In the opinion of the Task Force, therefore, direct price control in the sense that it is understood
today is neither necessary nor effective. An alternative system of price regulation is, therefore,
proposed, which has the following features:
Price regulations should be imposed not on the basis of turnover, but on the ‘essentiality’
of the drug and on strategic considerations regarding the impact of price control on the
therapeutic class. This must be a dynamic process.
Price regulations should be applied only to formulations, i.e. the medicine actually used
by the consumer, and not to upstream products such as bulk drugs. In other words, intra-
industry transactions should not be controlled unless there are compelling reasons for
doing so.
There should be no attempt to impose uniformity in prices of regulated drugs on a lowest
common denominator basis, and only a ceiling should be prescribed. Companies should
be free to decide their price-quantity configuration within the prescribed price limit.
The ceiling prices of regulated drugs should normally not be based on cost of production,
but on readily monitorable market-based benchmarks.
The National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), 2003 should form the basis on which the
selection of drugs for active regulation is made. The NLEM contains such medicines that
satisfy the priority health needs of the country’s population. These are intended to be available
within the context of a functioning health system at all times in adequate amounts in the
appropriate dosage forms. These medicines have been selected by an Expert Core Committee
constituted by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) out of the WHO model list of
essential medicines, Essential Drugs Lists of various States, medicines used in various national
259
health programmes and emergency care drugs. There are two categories of medicines in the
NLEM, 2003 – the core medicines and the complementary medicines. The complementary
medicines denote those medicines which may be needed when the core medicines are not readily
available or they may be required in specific situations or locations for well founded reasons.
Although the NLEM is specified in terms of APIs and a few fixed-dose combinations, no price
regulation should be applied to the APIs themselves, but to all formulations made there from. To
start the process, the government should announce the ceiling price of all formulations based on
these 354 drugs (APIs and fixed-dose combinations) contained in the NLEM on the basis of the
weighted average prices of the top three brands by value of single ingredient formulations
prevailing in the market as on the latest date for which market data from ORG-IMS is available
prior to the announcement of the policy. In cases where there are less than three brands, the
average of all existing brands would be taken. Since the ORG-IMS data relate to dealers’ prices,
a standard retail mark-up of 20% may be provided as per the existing arrangement in the
industry.
The reference product (formulation) should be specified in terms of specific strength and pack
size for each product which would form the basis for the ceiling price determination. The price
ceiling, however, would be specified on a per dosage basis, such as per tablet/capsule or standard
volume of injection.
The ceiling prices of all other strengths and dosages would be determined on the basis of a
standard formula, which would be related to the ceiling price of the reference formulation. The
suggested formula for this purpose is as follows:
P(s) = P*.[1 + a.{(s – s*)/s*}]
Where: P(s) = price ceiling for strength s
P* = price ceiling for reference strength s*
s = strength in terms of API content
s* = reference strength
a = constant such that 0 < a < 1
The constant ‘a’ in the above formula recognizes that the cost of production of a tablet or
injection decreases as the strength is increased. However, it is also recognized that the other
‘costs’, such as promotional expenses and profit margins, which constitute a substantial fraction
of the price of a formulation, do not exhibit the same behavior. Therefore, great care needs to be
260
taken to ensure that ‘a’ is not chosen in a manner that incentivizes companies to produce non-
standard strengths in order to maximize profits. Preliminary exercises carried out by the Task
Force indicate that the appropriate value of ‘a’ is 0.8 for tablets/capsules and 0.7 for injectibles.
These may be used to begin with, and further refinements can be carried out over time.
Prices of formulations should be allowed to move freely so long as the ceiling prices are not
breached. Price relaxations for higher ceilings may be permitted for non-standard delivery
systems, packaging and pack sizes through applications to a negotiations committee to be set up
for this purpose, which then should become applicable for all similar cases. The NPPA already
has standard mark-up norms that are allowed in most such cases, and these should be
automatically applied before the case is referred to the negotiations committee.
In the case of formulations which involve a combination of more than one drug in the NLEM,
the ceiling price would be the weighted average of the applicable ceiling prices of its
constituents. For formulations containing a combination of a drug in the NLEM and any other
drug, the ceiling price applicable to the essential drug would be made applicable. However, the
company would be free to approach the price negotiations committee for a relaxation of the price
on the basis of evidence proving superior therapeutic effectiveness for particular disease
conditions.
Although the above may take care of limiting future price increases, it leaves open the question
of further moderation of prices of existing essential drugs. It is, therefore, suggested that a
reference price should be derived from the prices quoted in the bulk procurement by government
and other agencies. This is in fact the system which is effectively in operation in countries which
have strong and wide-spread public health-care systems. Recognizing that such prices are likely
to vary from order to order and location to location, an average would need to be used. In
addition, a mark-up will need to be allowed to cover trade margins and other distribution costs.
An analysis of the available data suggests that a 100% margin should be ample.
However, the Task Force recognizes that the bulk purchase systems prevailing in India leave a
lot to be desired, and the prices derived from them may not reflect the true prices of quality
drugs. There is considerable evidence that the systems are riddled with all manner of
malpractices, such as sub-standard or under-strength drugs and short-supplying. It is, therefore,
not possible to use these prices immediately, despite the fact that there are a few notable
examples of excellent systems of bulk purchase, such as in Tamil Nadu and Delhi, and in
261
institutions like the Armed Forces, Employees State Insurance (ESI) and some hospitals.
Furthermore, it needs to be recognized that any such price monitoring strategy based on bulk
purchase data may compromise the tender processes in bulk purchases. As it is, there is evidence
of cartelization and other undesirable practices in drug tendering, and these are likely to become
worse. It is, therefore, of the highest importance that the benchmarking is not based on a fixed
set of bulk purchase tenders, and the tendering systems are properly designed. Suggestions in
this regard are given later in this Report. Until such time there is reasonable assurance that the
bulk price systems are reliable and reflect quality drugs, such benchmarking should not be used
or should be confined only to such bulk purchases which meet certain minimum standards for
tender procedures.
Since it would take time to streamline the bulk procurement procedures and to generate reliable
data on such bulk purchases prices, the ceiling prices should be allowed to rise on the basis of the
wholesale price index for manufactured goods (this would be a subset of Wholesale Price Index
(WPI) and is readily available from the Ministry of Industry). This could be done twice a year
on pre-specified dates.
The determination of the ceiling prices and ensuring compliance should not be discretionary and
should be completely transparent. The regulator should set up a computer based system which
would scan the price data provided by companies against the ceiling prices determined as above
and identify formulations which breach the relevant price ceiling. The company manufacturing
or marketing such a product would be required to reduce its price or to face penal action.
Companies should be permitted to represent for any price increase on valid grounds and with
appropriate documentation, which should be considered by the negotiations committee and then,
if accepted, become applicable to the entire class of products.
There are two issues which are left unaddressed by the above proposal. First, the ORG-IMS data
at present covers about 246 of the 354 items contained in the NLEM. Of the remaining, about 40
are not directly purchased by individuals and are primarily used in hospitals with little market
sales, for which there may be no urgency to announce ceiling prices since they are mostly
procured through bulk purchases. The industry has also agreed to make available these items at
50% of the market price to the government. The prevailing market prices of the formulations of
the remaining 60 odd drugs would have to be collected immediately through a quick market
survey before the policy is put into effect.
262
Second, 15 of the drugs presently under price control through DPCO 1995 are also contained in
the NLEM, for which free market prices will simply not be available. Since the ceiling prices
are to be determined on the basis of existing prices, the present controlled prices will become the
ceiling for these drugs. It is recognized that this is iniquitous and may be distortive, but there is
little that can be done at present. It is, therefore, suggested that for all such drugs the bulk
purchase price, if available, should be immediately examined to consider whether the ceilings
should be adjusted upwards.
Finally, it is extremely important that the NLEM should be revised periodically, say every 5
years, in order to reflect new drugs and significant changes in pattern of drug sales within the
therapeutic categories, for which a permanent arrangement needs to be made by the Department
of Health.
Price Ceiling vs. Price Freeze
During the consultation process, it emerged that the industry would prefer to have a freeze on the
existing prices of all formulations produced from APIs in the NLEM with provision of annual
escalations rather than the ceiling price that is being recommended by the Task Force. It is
claimed that this measure would serve the same purpose as the price ceiling, with one significant
advantage – the prices of all formulations would remain stable as against the possibility of
increases in the prices of those formulations which are initially below the ceiling price. It has
been claimed that all prices will tend to move up to the ceiling as soon as the government
announces the ceiling price.
The Task Force has considered this proposal in all seriousness, and is of the view that the two
proposals are not similar in terms of their impact. In this regard, the following points need to be
made:
There is no reason to believe that under the ceiling price system, all prices will tend to
converge to the ceiling. Each company typically selects a particular price niche in which
it is competitive and is unlikely to change it casually. If it does so, it is likely to lose
heavily and will return to its original price point. Moreover, if a particular price point is
vacated by an incumbent, it is quite likely that a new company will fill the niche.
263
The price freeze proposal is inherently anti-competition since it does not allow any
flexibility to the companies to adjust to market dynamics. Thus the market structure for
the existing products gets frozen almost permanently.
A price freeze can apply only to existing products and not to any new product.
Therefore, it leaves open the possibility of the freeze being easily circumvented by small
changes in the formulations or even in the brand names. Such behavior could completely
negate the intention of the policy.
In view of the above points, the Task Force is of the opinion that the price freeze proposal has
serious drawbacks, and does not provide an acceptable substitute for the price ceiling approach.
Price Monitoring and Price Negotiations
There is a legitimate fear that price regulation of only a selected basket of drugs can lead to a
switch in production and prescription behavior away from these drugs towards those which are
not covered. This is certainly a possibility since the NLEM is based on specific APIs and not on
therapeutic categories. Thus there is ample space for doctors to address disease conditions
without necessarily prescribing the drugs under price ceilings. The likelihood of this happening
is less under the proposed system than at present since it does not disturb the existing market
equilibrium in any significant manner. There is, therefore, no rational reason for companies to
change their marketing strategies in the immediate future. Nevertheless, in the longer run, it is
possible that the relative profit abilities may alter sufficiently to induce such switching behavior,
and some provision will need to be made.
This aspect can be addressed through a price monitoring mechanism. The key element of any
price monitoring system is the benchmark or reference price that is used. There is a suggestion
that the current market price of every formulation plus an annual percentage escalation could
serve the purpose. The danger in this is that the escalation factor may become the basis for all
companies to raise prices on a regular basis, thereby defeating the very purpose of such a
mechanism. Cost-based benchmarking too does not recommend itself due to its intrusiveness
and the delays that are involved.
In the case of drugs not contained in the NLEM, it is suggested that three separate categories be
distinguished:
1. Isomers of APIs in the NLEM – these should be brought under the same ceilings as
applicable to the NLEM molecule.
264
2. Existing drugs falling into a pre-specified list of therapeutic categories – intensive
monitoring should be carried out for all formulations in specified therapeutic categories.
Any significant variation in the prices (say above 10 per cent annually) would be
identified for negotiation. The therapeutic categories which may be considered for such
treatment in annexed.
3. All other drugs should be completely free of price regulations, and only regular
monitoring should be done. Only in cases where there is evidence of unusual price
escalations, significant change in prescription behavior or public complaints should there be
any regulatory action.
The advantage of this method is that normal market behavior is dynamically taken into account,
and to facilitate this, a half-yearly revision of the benchmarks may be considered.
New and Patented Products
The above suggestions relate mainly to existing formulations, and it is necessary to lay down the
guidelines for new drugs. As has already been argued, one of the main pressure points for
moderating the price of drugs is the entry of new products. However, for this role to be played
effectively, it has to be ensured that the prices of new drugs are not completely out of line with
the existing.
Any new formulation based on existing APIs would be required to submit its intended entry
price along with application for marketing approval, which would be granted only if the
indicated price is consistent with the relevant ceiling price, if applicable. If there are no price
ceilings, i.e. the new formulation is not based on an API contained in the NLEM or its isomer,
the proposed entry price should be accepted automatically and then subjected to the disciplines
indicated above wherever applicable.
All patented drugs and their formulations should compulsorily be brought under price
negotiation prior to the grant of marketing approval. Failure of such negotiations should then
invite either price control or compulsory licensing. There are a number of alternative ways of
ensuring that the price of a patented drug reflects the purchasing power in the country and is not
confined only to the highest income groups. The use of purchasing power parity (PPP) indices
has been suggested, for instance, and there are other alternatives such as the ratio of per capita
incomes. However, it is felt that it would be preferable to benchmark the prices of new patented
products to the prices prevailing in the domestic pharmaceuticals market, and not to any general
265
measure of prices or incomes. This is likely to distort the relative prices much less than any
other method.
The other dimension of benchmarking is the foreign price that is used for the purpose. The
various suggestions that exist at present usually depend upon market prices in selected foreign
markets, which may not actually serve the purpose. It is necessary to recall that most other
countries have a very substantial proportion of their pharmaceutical usage going through either
the public healthcare system or through reimbursements. The prices used in these cases arise
either out of negotiations or from bulk purchases. Since much of the work is already done, India
should take advantage of this information in its negotiations. Much of this data is not readily
available in the public domain, and arrangements will have to be made with selected countries to
obtain the requisite information.
It is, therefore, suggested that all applications for marketing of patented drugs should be required
to contain comprehensive information on not only the market prices charged in other countries,
but more particularly the prices negotiated for reimbursement or bulk purchases. The reference
prices to be used for such negotiations should be based on the premium enjoyed by the drug in
the lowest priced market abroad compared to its closest therapeutic equivalent in that same
country. This premium can then be applied to the corresponding price of the same therapeutic
equivalent prevailing in the domestic market to determine the reasonable price in Indian
conditions. In other words, what is being suggested is that patented drugs should be allowed the
premium it commands elsewhere, but applied to the prices prevailing in India.
Information needs for price regulation
In order to make the proposed system of price regulation effective, a number of collateral
measures need to be implemented. First, regular reporting of prices (MRP) and any changes
therein must be made mandatory for all essential drugs, and eventually for all drugs. At present
there is no legal provision for compelling such disclosure from companies, and the experience
has been that most companies do not provide such data on a regular basis. It is necessary,
therefore, to provide a legal basis for compelling such disclosures with appropriate non-criminal
penalties such as temporary revocation of license. Second, there must be standardization which
will enable meaningful price comparisons. This has two dimensions: (a) standardization of pack
sizes and strengths; and (b) uniform MRP for the entire country. The first will need to be
266
imposed legally so that violations are punishable. The second should be feasible without too
much problem since the VAT rates are now more or less common between states.
Mandatory price reporting does not, however, do away with the need to have a well-designed
system for ex-post price monitoring in the market. In fact, it becomes all the more important,
and its periodicity may have to be increased. The present system is too weak and needs to be
strengthened significantly.
The availability of the price data should be ensured by the measures described above, but
additional information would need to be generated on at least other two dimensions. First, for
establishing market dominance or producer behavior, it would be necessary to establish a
prescription monitoring system whereby the trends in specific brands or formulations being
disproportionately prescribed either nationally or even regionally could be tracked. Second,
there would have to be a system in place to measure the availability of drugs on an on-going
basis in order to assess whether artificial scarcities are being created.
Ethics appears to deal with, among other things, the problem of right and wrong conduct,
intrinsic good and evil and relevance of means to ends. All these three imply a certain world
view; and in turn imply a certain consistency of one's actions to this world view.
We will examine the subject of low cost drug production with the above understanding of ethics.
Our experiences are centered on LOCOST, a voluntary agency based in Baroda. LOCOST
founded in 1983, has gone on from trading in formulations, to loan license and to manufacture in
its own formulations unit. LOCOST has been also active, now and then, in educational issues
and in promotion of rational drug therapy. LOCOST has also handled project exports and
technology transfer to a neighboring country for a major bulk drug project.
LOCOST has survived, and has, by and large, shown that low priced quality formulations can
be an economically viable idea.
Survival, and viable survival at that, tends to generate narratives and discourses that portray
those involved in a favorable, even heroic, light. This is especially so when the sutradhars are the
principal actors themselves. This narration of ethical issues involved in no exception, although
an attempt will be made at some kind of reflective discourse.
On Being Clean
Voluntary organizations like LOCOST that are into business operate under twin compulsions: to
267
be 'business like' and to adhere to the ethos of voluntary organization, and in our case of non-
profit trusts.
One of the most important issues in the macro business environment in India is that of
corruption. Have we corrupted and indulged in corruption? To our best of knowledge we have
not. Bribing or speed money is basically to get your work done fast lest the rug is pulled under
your feet by the many arms of the government. The effect of us not bribing is that permissions
get delayed. Others take 24 hours in getting things done; for us it takes even 24 weeks at times.
This has led to some inbuilt delays. Our response time is slow in making changes as per
customer's requirements.
Have we indulged in indirect corruption? That is through consultants and intermediaries one
goes through? Here we are not so sure. Except in one case where we certainly know that our
consultant paid Rs. 500/- to a government functionary, without our knowledge, and without
doing which he felt that our temporary electrical connection will simply not be on. Otherwise we
have told our consultants not to give money on our behalf. Most of the time most of our
consultants privately snigger at our morality. But they put up with us. For the most part, we try
to get deal with those bureaucrats still unbrutalised by the environment of a government office:
Sahib, this is a trust doing good. They make essential medicines for the poor. The government
functionary let goes, although not without scoring points in a school masterly fashion. In a few
cases, the functionary genuinely believes he/she should not take money from a 'good-works'
organization. At other times the rent paid by the consultant on behalf of other clients exonerates
us.
Some friends have counted 35 statutory acts/bodies which small-scale business organizations in
India have to comply with. We reckon that the regular ones are about a dozen. Most of these
statutes have provision for inspectors who visit you and have the power to demand compliance,
often on some abstruse technically, by putting their 'observations' in the 'Visit Book'. The
attitude of most of these functionaries is you are likely to have violated some provision, so it is
up to you to wriggle out of it. You are guilty unless you prove innocent. The onus of the proof
lies with you. The easy way is to pacify government visitors from the start: Send your vehicle to
receive them at the railway station (although they are entitled to TA/DA), give them lunch at a
'decent place if it is anywhere near lunch time, and in general be very deferential and do not
question their most illogical observations in your Visit Book. We on our part try to be
268
deferential, within limits of what we think does not compromise with our dignity although it
may try our patience.
An Excise and Prohibition functionary in charge of alcohol quota for our factory once decided to
vent his spleen, not having found any fault, on the score that our Factory Manager does not serve
water on his arrival. He insisted on taking some 'shakti ki davaee' and took some three to four
bottles of syrups (total cost Rs. 50/-). More recently, one of the local government functionaries,
who presumably came to advise us on our compliance leading to better manufacturing practices,
brazenly asked for and was given 100 tablets of Chloroquine (total cost Rs. 53/-). In both cases
the writer regrets to report that we were not strong enough to tell the functionaries concerned,
"No, you cannot take the medicine".
Regular companies have other strategies: of also giving a packet on departure; this prevents
serious comments in the Visit Book and subsequent queries that can keep you busy at least a
month. When it is your turn to visit their offices, officials tend to extend their 'cooperation' when
you have 'cooperated'. A businessperson, who has probably put family jewels on mortgage to
complete his/her capital requirements, is threatened, with or without justification, by a Pollution
Control Board inspector that his/her factory will be closed. The businessperson also tends to
cooperate, though not necessarily to comply with anti-pollution requirements.
We do not give packets. We are kept busy weeks, and at times, months on end in trying to
comply, or argue out, points made in the Visit Book by government functionaries or notings
otherwise made in files.
And ethical response would probably be that we tell the functionaries off. We tried politely in
the beginning. We now find it is not worth the trouble. Our main business is to produce quality
drugs at low cost, so why invite unnecessary correspondence/meetings regarding so-called
compliance?
But is our main business only to produce quality drugs but not also to oppose dehumanising
tendencies anywhere? Bureaucracy humiliates and dehumanizes. Oh yes, we have not bribed in
the classical sense, but when we know for sure, and have visibly seen, instances of illegal
gratification, of company executives giving licensing authorities costly presents in cash and kind
as Diwali gifts, should we keep quiet? Surely our short-term expediency of 'avoiding trouble'
and 'getting on with our main task' conflicts with our long-term goals. Also, with what clean
conscience do we continue to advocate the (politically correct NGO) line of more role for the
269
State in industry and public welfare when we find the State does not serve anybody but its own
minions?
A related issue is of size and scale: today our size is relatively modest. We are able to manage
this aspect of our environment because we are small. What happens when the size triples,
demand from our target market segment (namely those working with the poor) increases?
Should we limit our size only because we cannot manage the spurious requirements of our
statutory functionaries and babus? Is it ethically right for a voluntary agency to flee from a battle
of right versus wrong?
Probably no thriving business today in India is run squeaky clean. There is some yielding of
bureaucratic whims in anticipation of bureaucratic nitpicking; and bending of rules and even
laws depending on one's confidence to 'work' the system. For ourselves at LOCOST, we are
clear we will close down, even if it causes inconvenience to workers and to customers.
LOCOST, if push comes to a shove, will pull down its shutters. However, such industrial
bravery stories are quickly forgotten and life carries on. For our response would not have made
an iota of difference to the system.
Choice of product, pricing and ethics
Any business has to make what it considers safe, ethical products. In drugs, safety is a relative
issue. No drug is free from side effects. In some drugs, certain new side effects and adverse drug
reactions are known only as time passes.
It is practically impossible to become expert in the several scientific disciplines that feed into the
pharmacological knowledge of medicines. This requires that as an ethical group one draws upon
accepted standard sources of national/international expertise. At the same time one benchmarks
available expert information with practical field experience. In the process, we need to develop
awareness about the politics of the knowledge industry, and of medicine and health. An
instinctive feel of who is saying what and why helps.
At a first level, in drawing up a list of drugs for production, one takes recourse to standard
essential drug lists like WHO, Hathi Committee, etc. and formulates, with the help of more
immediately available local experience, one's own essential drug list depending on local
community requirements.
Being an ethical drug manufacturer means you make only essential generic medicines. You are
spared of innovating new fixed dose combinations that tend to mislead uninformed customers.
270
Again among essential drugs, one makes only what current scientific and clinical experience
considers rational. Thus we make only Amoxycillin and not also Ampicillin; Doxycycline only
and not also Tetracycline. We are also in the process of weeding out Indomethacin as it has more
adverse side effects; and other analgesics like Paracetamol and Ibuprofen are preferable. In each
of these and a dozen other cases, the drugs not made and/or being weeded out are not banned,
there is a flourishing demand for all of them, and probably the customer is not going to change
his prescription practice despite our entreaties. And to top if all, not making them means
foregoing that many amount of sales.
In the case of LOCOST, we have imposed on ourselves another constraint: that of supplying
medicines only to those working with the poor. This in principle means only NGOs and social
action groups. Mostly the poor use the government sector. But till date, we have not been able to
make any dent on the government sector. Nor have we really tried hard. The kind of
compromises we need to make, of 'sharing the proceeds' with government functionaries, etc.
have deterred us. Recently, one intermediary told us to stay off when he realized we were a
public trust. This intermediary helps procures orders from DGSTD, defense, railways, etc. He
tried to impress us by saying how he has recently increased the orders from a government
department, for a well-known Baroda based company, from 35 lakh units to one crore units. His
commission, the worthy told us, was 20 percent. This writer asked him how on earth anybody
could be competitive, let alone make any profit, if he had to pay such a hefty commission for
generic medicines. He told us that some of the supplies are made only on paper, bills passed and
sales proceeds shared. It is difficult, he assured us, for anybody in the government to physically
check as the orders run into crores of tablets and capsules.
However, this is not new to us. We often hear many such variants of how drug companies
manage to quote ridiculously low prices. This is something we live with. In the Indian dream,
not unlike the American dream, nothing succeeds like success.
One practical consequence is that not all our customers are willing to go along with us in
examining the total integrity of our competitive manufacturers, resting content with the end
prices and performance of the products supplied. This is agonizing for us. So then, just to retain
goodwill we cut down prices further, which in turn means generating more sales to even stay at
the same level of revenue as last year (like Alice running twice as hard to stay put in the same
place).
271
Increasing sales and maximizing utilization of capacity is desirable for another reason: we reach
out to more of our target market segment. But this in turn affects the size of our operations: from
a small-scale industry we become medium-scale and further more. With increased size, as noted
before, there is the question, will we continue to be able to stick to our values?
And whether ethics like small is beautiful? Indeed if anything the ethic of small is beautiful takes
a severe beating in a rapidly changing globalizing economy, and especially so in a highly
inflationary environment like the one we have had for the last 4 years.
Let us take pricing, profits and salaries - factors interrelated to each other. On the whole our
pricing should be lesser than the market prices of drugs, otherwise it undermines the very
rationale and logic of our existence. We have claimed that good quality medicines can be made
at prices lesser than market formulations. We have done so in the past. Can we continue to do
so? Is low pricing of medicines sustainable on a long-term basis given the many boundary
conditions of being a voluntary, ethical organization?
Clearly how low our pricing can dip, is contingent on how much revenue we need to generate to
keep operations going, the breakeven point. Minimum revenue to be generated keeps going up
every year, thanks to inflation. Minimum revenue is also contingent on how much or how little
you decide to pay to your workers.
What when should our workers get? At the least, they cannot get less than the official minimum
wages. But as anybody who has looked into the politics of minimum wage announcements
knows, minimum wages provisions are decided by the ruling elite of politicians, bureaucrats and
business lobbies like chambers of commerce. They all need each other. So the minimum wave
fixed is what suits the collective political interests of this triumvirate.
These minimum wages do not buy a decent house, good education for one's children and a
decent quality of life. They probably keep a single-wage earner family of four from continuous
starvation. Clearly then by just paying as per the statutory minimum wages, one cannot, as an
ethically oriented organization, sleep peacefully in the night.
While this is not the place to give an answer to this vexed question, we need to work out salary
levels that can at least help a worker enjoy middle-class life style without middle-class
consumerism and vulgarity. In any case it is hardly ethical for a voluntary organization to rest
content with the statement that 'we are paying a worker his/her minimum wage', or worse,
his/her 'market value' when we know well that the invisible hand of the market tends to tilt
272
towards those already well-off.
Reverting back to the issue of pricing, can we say then that one of the major factors that
determine the scale of the organization is the minimum comfort wages to be paid to workers
which in turn ought to determine pricing?
What then of surplus? Surplus generation is determined by, and in turn determines, prices, sales
and the scale of a low cost drug manufacturing effort. Surplus is necessary for funding
depreciation, for ploughing back into capital investments in the future and to inspire confidence
in bankers, funders and one's own workers. Nobody is going to subsidies a loss-making concern
for long. Adequate surplus can also ensure lower interest burden in the future which in turn
means lower costs of manufacture.
How much profit/surplus to make is also determined by other concomitant requirements like
allocating money for research, education and product development. It is doubtful whether any
significant research leading to product development and product innovation can be done by
small-scale organizations in competitive markets. This is basically because there is not enough
surplus to do so. In LOCOST's case, our research and education is independently funded. We do
not do any product development. Funding of research is at the best of times a complicated issue.
Current market wisdom is forcing even CSIR labs to do a bit of their own generation. Can and
should a low cost drug producing unit continue to source money for this from outside?
More important is of course the issue of what type of research that a voluntary drug-
manufacturing unit can conduct, assuming that it should do research. There are no easy answers.
If there is one area where ethical standards are visibly called upon in drug manufacturing, it is in
the area of quality control. Today pressures of competition often force manufacturers to take
short cuts. An ethical organization cannot afford to do so. The pharmacopeia often sanctions a
10% tolerance limit. Manufacturers are known to save on costs by making formulations at the
lower end of the limit (a 500 mg tablet of, say Paracetamol, would contain only 451 mg of the
active substance). Legally, a 451 mg Paracetamol still passes in quality control. The customer
would seldom know. Most Indians have low body weight, therefore the dosage by weight really
does not suffer. So is it okay?
No, it is not. It is misguiding the customer just as claiming extra advantages of branded over
generic drugs is misguiding the public.
The other area of quality control is too actually to do all the tests specified in the pharmacopeia.
273
Again, if some tests are not done, it does not really seem to matter. But then in a very real sense,
one is playing with people's lives. So it is better to do all the tests.
There are also expectedly, many grey areas. A raw material consistently fails in, say, iron
content, and on the margins at that. And there are no other alternative manufacturers of the raw
material or in the case of others, the quality is suspect on several other counts. Do we take the
raw material for manufacture especially as the small deficiency with respect to iron is not going
to make a difference in the tablet? There is a big demand piling up. Customers are getting
increasingly irate. Do we manufacture?
No. We do not manufacturer even at the risk of appearing cruel. Even if you know that other
manufacturers are making a killing on faulty raw material.
There is a related requirement: if a raw material or excipient fails, a report is to be sent to the
drug authorities who in turn presumably force the negligent raw material manufacturer to correct
his/her output. When there are serious problems with the quality of the sourced raw material, we
do make a formal report, even if we have seldom seen any corrective action. Often we find it is
more effective to talk to the manufacturer, apart from returning the failed raw material. Probably
the 'market mechanism' of many quality conscious manufacturers returning the faulty raw
material will force the manufacturer to correct his/her manufacturing process. However there are
so many ifs and buts in this kind of a posture. At best our own stance is wishy-washy ethically.
If we are serious about ethics and systemic promotion of quality, we ought to be willing to take
on manufacturers, suppliers and the Drug Administration and follow up until we get an
appropriate response.
There was the time we went to the press by announcing that a nice-looking, blister-packed
Rifampicin 450 mg of a manufacturer in Vapi had only 250 mg. A senior FDA authority later
politely told this writer how we should approach the FDA and assured this writer avuncularly
that if we had such problems,’ we will solve your problems, why go to the press?
This is not the place for a critique of the FDA. For a part critique of the Maharashtra FDA, that
licenses many of the major drug units of this country, the reader is urged to read the Justice
Lentin Commission Report (1989) on the Mannitol tragedy. If only more manufacturers would
come together and share their experiences, one can make the administration probably less venal
and more responsive. But no manufacturer in the commercial sector would like to put his bottom
on the sling; partly because everybody feels he/she has some skeletons to hide, or the authorities
274
may create skeletons where none existed before. So everybody tends to be 'practica', and life
carries on in liberalized India.
There are something which intrinsically not done (or 'evil') like making a substandard drug.
During the manufacturing operation, we can claim to have set yardsticks, which are more
stringent than the statute book, yardsticks, which actually matter. Most manufacturers with some
semblance of a conscience do set for themselves some such yardsticks. The State authorities
related to the 35 acts specified above, however tend to often look at the letter of the law than the
spirit. In fact, the system lets off the hook those who violate the real intent of the law. Ordinary,
well-meaning persons, can be made to look guilty offenders by an administrative ruling or an
executive fiat. One develops over time an intuitive understanding of the relative importance of
various administrative actions, often punitive in intent, and develop ethical ways of coping and
yet being functional.
An ethical organization in business by virtue of its existence needs to cultivate more humane
values and ethos internally. Ethically, anything that conflicts with these values, must not be
pursued. LOCOST after some deliberation has decided that the following minimal values and
processes are important:
1) Promotion of good quality generic drugs and rational therapy
2) Promotion of health education
3) Influencing national/state level health policy with a priority on drugs
Operationally, the following values and processes would sought to be actualized in phased
manner:
1) Encourage people to be as free and autonomous, as possible, with increasing sense of
self-responsibility and self-discipline.
2) Clean, non-bribing culture with transparency and openness in all matters.
3) Participation in decision making processes and a culture of egalitarian and humane ethos.
4) Simplicity in every aspect of working, organizing meetings, presenting ideas in speech
and in writing.
5) Internationalizing of LOCOST by all employees as an alternative organization with
larger societal and personal goals.
Specifically the following shall be sought to be implemented in a period of 5 years to the extent
275
possible:
a) Reduction of salary differences between highest and lowest paid levels, or at least paying
lower levels better than industry and statutory norms. Benefits must be same for everyone -
even if salaries continue to show difference.
b) Reduction of differences between leaders and the led, and empowering of those who work
to take decisions.
c) Financial decisions must be taken after considering quality, price and market constraints.
d) Partner profile: Continue as we do for 2 years and then re-examine any necessity for
change in reaching out to newer consumer segments.
e) All activities geared towards rational therapy (but not policy influencing or research)
should be built into cost (like quality control).
f) Reach out in symbolic ways, if be with a measure of tentativeness and deliberateness,
understanding that those who implement must feel comfortable, even as there are built in
limitations of middle-class elite trying to actualize democratic and participatory goals. The
former has choices and options in life which workers do not as a rule have. Nevertheless,
those who have must consciously strive to minimize the differences and contradictions
between our private and public lives. Value actualization is a process that can never be
completely, if not perfectly, achieved. At best, we should consider our sincere efforts
'experiments in truth' 1
There are many other issues that need discussion. But this essay is becoming long and that
increases the risk of it not being read. For the sake of brevity we will just mention a few other
important issues which bear discussion in a longer effort: ethical issues in promotion, labeling
and marketing of drugs; ethical dilemmas in concurrently manufacturing and marketing drugs
from other systems of medicine; issues generic to the NGO paradigm of organization; ethical
issues related to lobbying, public advocacy and our attitudes to the government; ethical issues in
the liberalization versus regulation debate; issues of human rights in the manufacture, marketing
and use of pharmaceuticals; gender issues in the choice, manufacture and marketing of drugs;
and how should an ethics conscious person conduct himself/herself in a milieu of less than
perfect people in a less than perfect world.
At the bottom of it all, our reading of reality, the frameworks we use, are often deep ethical
issues. Organizations, low cost or otherwise, making modern medicines, are active supporters of
276
the modern science paradigm, of a positivist paradigm of a reality out there. Our continuous
ongoing production and distribution of drugs, often to public applause, comes across as an
unproblematic espousal of modern medicine and modern science. Leave aside the debate of the
hegemonic nature of modern science and medicine, and the violence it has done to a humane
ethos. What is it we can do about the gigantic industrial chemical complex upon which
medicines are based, and about what it does to our environment? How do we continue to sell
medicines endorsed on basis of double blind clinical trials, or otherwise on research
methodologies, whose ethicality is suspect?
At the heart of these dilemmas are questions of method in science, and of the nature of
development and what they together do to human cultures. Unless one makes some progress in
these issues, consistency of means and ends, one of the pillars of ethics, would appear to be in
some kind of a soup. With it, drug production, low cost or otherwise, does appear to be a bit of a
flawed enterprise.
The Hathi Committee
In the context of large-scale expansion of the drugs and pharmaceuticals industry, with a view to
ensuring the regulated and rapid growth of drug manufacture and further with a view to ensuring
that all essential drugs are made available to the consumers at reasonable prices, Government
constituted a Committee in February, 1974 under the Chairmanship of Shri Jaisukhlal Hathi,
which had Members of Parliament along with officials and non-officials as members, to enquire
into various facets of the drugs industry in India. The terms of reference included progress made
and status achieved by the industry, role of public sector, growth of indigenous industry,
including the small scale, technological requirements, quality control measures, pricing of drugs
etc. Almost all the aspects of the drugs and pharmaceutical industry were critically examined by
Hathi Committee with a view to achieve self-sufficiency and to serve the national interest.
Hathi Committee submitted its report in April 1975. The report contained 224 recommendations
spread over 8 chapters on various aspects of Pharmaceutical Industry. The thrust of
recommendations related to reemphasizing the leading role for the public sector, setting up of
National Drug Authority, preference to Indian Sector over the foreign sector, indigenous
production of raw materials, selective price control on prices of drugs etc.
277
It was proposed that a body to be called the National Drugs and Pharmaceutical Authority be
established at the Central level, with a permanent secretariat, for registration of new formulations
and rationalization of existing formulations. Standardization of packaging, monitoring of
adverse reaction and promotion of use of generic name were also pursued along with
strengthening infrastructural facilities for quality control and giving statutory effect to good
manufacturing practices. Loan licensing system under Drugs and Cosmetic Act was proposed to
be abolished in a phased manner. It may be noted here that the above mentioned proposed
authority was not same in character as the National Drug Authority envisaged by the Hathi
Committee .
As regards Licensing, the list of items reserved for the public sector was pruned keeping in view
their performance and the requirement in the country. Indian private sector, however, continued
to be given favorable treatment as compared to units having foreign holding. In order to have the
desired result from the measures in the areas of licensing and pricing policies, it was necessary to
have appropriate fiscal policy measures. Therefore, duty incidence on raw materials, drug
intermediates and drugs was recommended to be structured in a graded way so as to make
indigenous production viable.
The Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 was promulgated under which the system of retention
and pooled pricing was given up and, therefore, the Drug Prices Equalization Account stood
abolished. Price fixation for imported bulk drugs was done away with. In case of formulations,
the concept of leader price was replaced with the concept of ceiling price to be followed by all.
Provision was made to recover the amount accrued due to charging of prices higher than those
fixed or notified by the Government. Ceilings for maximum pre-tax return were retained as
before. A total of 142 drugs and their formulations were brought under price control against 347
drugs under earlier DPCO 1979.
Since 1986, the Drug Industry grew significantly, in terms of production of bulk drugs and
formulations. In many cases, manufacture of bulk drugs was also established from the desired
basic stage. It was estimated that in case of bulk drug production the contribution of small-scale
sector was approximately 30 per cent of the total production in the country. The Indian
Pharmaceutical sector was able to carve a special niche for itself in the international market as a
dependable exporter of bulk drugs.
Drug Policy of 1994 and Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995
278
Government announced further modifications in the Drug Policy 1986 in September 1994,
followed by a DPCO in 1995. The salient features of these modifications were as follow:
(a) Industrial Licensing was abolished except for drugs produced through
biotechnological processes and for drugs reserved for production by public sector units.
(b) For encouraging production of drugs from basic stage, a tariff mechanism was
proposed to be used along with providing for rate of return higher by 4% over the existing rates.
(c) Only 5 drugs in regard to which public sector units had made huge investment were
reserved for production by them with the provision to review the situation after 3 years.
(d) Foreign investment limit was raised to 51% from the then existing 40%.
(e) To give encouragement to research and development effort, provision was made to
exempt new drugs from price control for a period of 10 years.
(f) Price control system was proposed to be operated through a single list of drugs based
on criteria laid down in the policy and formulations based on these drugs were allowed 100%
MAPE.
(g) Drugs having turnover of Rs. 400 lakh or more having no market competition as per
laid down parameters and drugs having turnover less than Rs. 400 lakh but not less than Rs. 100
lakh having monopoly situation were kept under price control. In this way, the number of drugs
under price control was 76 (presently 74) as against 142 earlier.
(h) Task of price fixation/revision and related matter were proposed to be entrusted to an
independent body of experts to be called National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, while the
Government retained the power of review. Another step towards simplification and streamlining
was providing for time frame of two months for formulation pricing and four months for bulk
drug pricing.
(i) Ceiling prices were proposed to be fixed for commonly marketed standard pack sizes and
were made obligatory for all, including small-scale units, to follow.
(j) National Drug Authority under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was proposed to be
set up to look after the quality control aspects, rational use of drugs and related matters.
Post 1994 Situation
279
As already noted, the process of liberalization was set in motion in 1991, which considerably
reduced the scope of industrial licensing and abolished many non-tariff barriers to imports.
This process of liberalization and opening up of economy was reflected in changes effected in
the policies from time to time. Foreign direct investment through automatic route was raised
from 51% to 74% in March 2000 and subsequently to 100%. Public Sector units had to face
competition from imports and fell sick. Reservation of 5 bulk drugs production exclusively by
public sector was abolished in order to meet the demand in the country.
The pharmaceutical industry in India achieved global recognition as a low cost producer and
supplier of quality bulk drugs and formulations to the world. In 2004-5, drugs and
pharmaceutical production in the country stood at over Rs 35,000 crores, out of which exports
accounted for Rs 16,000 crores. Industry started questioning the meaning of terms like
‘turnover’, ‘market share’, etc. and many writ petitions were filed in various High Courts.
Majority of the cases were at Delhi and Mumbai. The latter ruled in favor of industry and an
appeal was filed in Supreme Court which referred the case back to Mumbai High Court.
However, the petitioner companies adopted the strategy of appealing/filing cases in other High
Courts also on different issues. To sum up, the industry, which has been averse to price control,
has been taking shelter under legal wrangling and thereby trying to thwart the implementation of
Drugs (Prices Control) Order. Meanwhile, two major issues surfaced on account of globalization
and implementation of our obligations under TRIPs, which impact on the long-term
competitiveness of Indian industry.
Recommendations of PRDC and DPCRC
In order to strengthen the pharmaceutical industry’s research and development capabilities and to
identify the support required by Indian pharmaceutical companies to undertake domestic R&D, a
Committee was set up in 1999 by the Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals by the name
of Pharmaceutical Research and Development Committee (PRDC) under the Chairmanship of
Director General of CSIR.
Also, in order to review the drug price control mechanism, with the objective, inter-alia, of
reducing the rigours of price control, where they had become counter-productive, a committee
280
called the Drug Price Control Review Committee (DPCRC), under the Chairmanship of
Secretary, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals was set up in 1999.
It emerged from the report of DPCRC that the domestic drugs and pharmaceuticals industry
needs reorientation in order to meet the challenges and harness opportunities arising out of the
liberalization of the economy and the impending advent of the product patent regime and,
therefore, the span of price control over drugs and pharmaceuticals ought to be reduced
substantially. However, keeping in view the interest of the weaker sections of the society, it was
proposed that the Government should retain the power to intervene comprehensively in cases
where prices behave abnormally. Thus, it was felt that there is need to establish effective
monitoring systems so as to make a smooth transition from “controlled regime” to “monitoring
regime” in a medium and long term perspective.
The availability of medicines at reasonable prices has been the subject matter of intense debate
ever since independence of the country, and the Central Government has been taking various
steps to meet this objective. From time to time, drug policies have been adopted to strike a
balance between the often conflicting interests of industry and consumers in moving towards the
objective of greater accessibility and affordability of drugs. The present Government also
attaches a high priority to this subject and has the declared objective of raising the public health
expenditure and to make available life saving drugs at reasonable prices with special attention to
the poorer sections of the society.
During the course of last over one year, the issue of drug prices has been discussed frequently
both within and outside Parliament. A major reason for this has been the apprehensions arising
from the introduction of the product patent regime in pharmaceuticals in India with effect from
1st January, 2005 in line with our international commitments under WTO/TRIPs agreements.
Since Indian Industry has mainly grown as a generics industry on the strength of process patents,
this would mean a fundamental shift in the operating environment of the industry in the times to
come. There is no doubt that India would continue to benefit from its strong generics production
for a long time to come, yet the freedom to reverse-engineer newer molecules would be vastly
hampered.
Apprehensions have been expressed that introduction of product patent would lead to steep
increase in the prices of medicines, affecting their affordability by the common man. It may be
mentioned here that, due to the strong base of generics that has been already established, a
281
majority of the drugs are outside the ambit of product patent and should continue to be available
in the future. Prices of these drugs too are not likely to be affected adversely in the immediate
future, but the repercussions over the longer term are less predictable. Added to this are the
safeguards built into the Patents Act, 1970 at the time of amending it, which will ensure
continuous production and availability of most of the existing drugs.
Despite the safeguards in the Patents Act, our strong generics base and comparatively low prices
of drugs, there are worries on account of very low purchasing power of the vast segments of the
poor population in the country. These concerns get reflected differently owing to different
perceptions of different people and organizations. Nevertheless, the point remains that it is very
difficult for the Government to ignore the fact that availability of essential drugs must be ensured
at affordable prices to the common man, and extra measures and safeguards may have to be
taken for improving accessibility of drugs to the poor people.
Price controls on pharmaceuticals in India
In the early stages of production of pharmaceuticals in India, the industry produced only
conventional drugs such as tinctures and other spirituous preparations, vaccines etc. Antibiotics
and synthetic drugs were introduced after the Second World War. Soon after the independence
of the country, the multinationals and the trading concerns started importing the finished
formulations. Subsequently, the production activity was stepped up based on imported bulk
drugs. The establishment of public sector units during 1954 to 1961 was an important milestone
in the development of pharmaceutical industry in India. By 1965-66 there were about 2000
manufacturing units producing formulations worth Rs. 1,500 million. Production of bulk drugs
was also picking up and had reached to the level of Rs. 180 million.
Table 4: Pharmaceutical Prices in Selected Countries
(Indian rupees)
Drug India Pakistan Indonesia USA UK
Ciprofloxacin 500 mg tabs 29.00 423.86 393.00 2352.35 1186.70
Norfloxacin 400 mg tabs 20.70 168.71 130.63 1843.56 804.78
282
Ofloxacin 200 mg tabs 40.00 249.30 204.34 1973.79 818.30
Cefpodoxime Proxetil 200
mg tabs
114.00 357.32 264.00 1576.58 773.21
Diclofenac Sodium 50 mg
tabs
3.50 84.71 59.75 674.77 60.96
Ranitidine 150 mg tabs 6.02 74.09 178.35 863.59 247.16
Omeprazole 30 mg caps 22.50 578.00 290.75 2047.50 870.91
Lansoprazole 30 mg caps 39.00 684.90 226.15 1909.64 708.08
Source: Joint submission made by Indian Drug Manufacturers Association (IDMA) and
Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI)
The prices of drugs were brought under statutory control for the first time by Government of
India in the wake of the Chinese aggression and the declaration of emergency in 1962. Due to
soaring prices of medicines the Drugs (Display of Prices) Order 1962 and the Drugs (Control of
Prices) Order 1963 were promulgated under the Defense of India Act. These orders had the
effect of freezing the prices of drugs as on 1st April 1963.
The industry was highly critical of the freeze order on the ground that the prices of relevant raw
materials were not similarly frozen. As a result, Government took two steps in 1966. Firstly, a
system of selective increases was introduced in place of the system of total freeze. Secondly, 18
essential drugs were identified and referred to the Tariff Commission for examining the cost
structure and recommending fair selling prices.
According to the Drugs Prices (Display & Control) Order 1966, it was obligatory for the
manufacturers to obtain prior approval of Government before increasing the prices of all
formulations in their lists as on 30th June 1966 (frozen for all practical purposes at the level of
April 1963). By amendment in August 1968, those which were sold under pharmacopoeial
names (nowadays known as ‘generics’) were exempted from price approval. Exemption was
also made in the case of new drugs, i.e. drugs which have been evolved as a result of original
research and intended to be marketed for the first time.
The Tariff Commission, after studying the cost structure of 18 selected bulk drugs and their
formulations and some related matters, submitted its Report to Government in August 1968.
283
Soon after the receipt of the Tariff Commission’s Report, the Government initiated action to
consider the various recommendations in consultation with the different organizations concerned
with the matter.
A Task Force with the following composition was constituted on the 29 th November 2004 to
explore various options other than price control for achieving the objective of making available
life saving drugs at reasonable prices:
Principal Adviser (PP) (Dr. Pronab Sen),
Planning Commission - Chairman
Joint Secretary (PI) (Shri G.S. Sandhu)
D/O. C&PC - Member
Joint Secretary (Smt. Rita Teaotia)
(D/O Health) - Member
Subsequently in February 2005, the Drugs Controller General of India (Dr. Ashwani Kumar) and
Member Secretary, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (Shri Pradip Mehra) were
nominated as permanent Special Invitees to the Task Force.
The Task Force held meetings on 9.12.2004, 13.1.2005, 22.2.2005 and 24.3.2005. Separate
meetings with Drug Industry Associations were also held on 24.1.2005, 6.7.2005, 16.7.2005,
29.7.2005, 5.9.2005 and 6.9.2005. A meeting with NGOs was also held on 29.6.2005. Further,
the Task Force's draft recommendations were provided to most of the Industry Associations and
the same were discussed with them in the meetings chaired by Hon'ble Minister(C&F). During
these meetings various issues relating to drug and pharmaceuticals were discussed and on that
basis the Task Force has furnished its final report to the Government. The major
recommendations are as follow:
1. The Strategic Approach:
The Task Force recommends that price regulation should be on the basis of ‘Essentiality’ of the
drug and it should be applied only to formulations and not to upstream products, such as bulk
drugs. No effort should be made to impose a uniform price, and only a ceiling price should be
indicated. The ceiling price of essential drugs should normally not be based on cost of
production but on readily monitorable market based benchmarks. Other drugs falling into
284
selected therapeutic categories should be brought under a comprehensive price monitoring
system with mandatory price negotiations system, if necessary. The regulatory mechanism
should be significantly strengthened both at the Centre and in the States. A process of active
promotion of generic drugs should be put in place including mandatory rebranding for selected
drugs. Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) involved in the manufacture of drugs should be revived
where possible and used as key strategic interventions for addressing both price and availability
issues. The drug regulator must maintain a data base of brands and their compositions and no
change should be permitted in the composition of a given brand. There should be bulk purchases
of drugs by Government agencies, cooperatives or consumer bodies through public-private
partnership and insurance companies should be encouraged to extend health insurance covering
medicines.
2. Drugs and Therapeutics (Regulation) Act:
A new legislation viz, Drugs and Therapeutics (Regulation) Act (DATA) should be enacted for
price control on drugs. Under DATA Government should be empowered to impose a price or
limit the increase in price, and to clearly lay down the principles governing or the reasons
leading to imposition of any such price control and to seek or compel disclosure of any
information or data relevant to its functioning. The powers and provisions of the DATA would
be in addition to those contained in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Essential
Commodities Act, 1955.
3. National Authority on Drugs and Therapeutics:
As a long term objective, the Task Force endorses the proposal made by the Planning
Commission in the Mid-term Appraisal of the Tenth Five Year Plan to establish a National
Authority on Drugs and Therapeutics (NADT), as an independent regulatory agency integrating
the offices of the Drugs Controller General of India, the Central Drugs Standard Control
Organization (CDSCO) and the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) along with
all the powers and functions of these bodies. In the interim, a dual regulatory system comprising
of the National Drug Authority (NDA) and the NPPA is proposed with standing arrangements
for resolution of over-lapping responsibilities.
4. Other Regulatory Issues:
Consistent with the strengthening of the Central Drug regulatory system, the state's supervisory
and regulatory capacity should also be strengthened. The Centre should financially support State
285
Governments to bring their state drug control formations to a threshold level, especially as far as
the price monitoring functions are concerned. The recommendations of the Mashelkar
Committee 2003 report should be adopted as a blue print for this purpose.
5. Principles of Price Regulation:
The Task Force recommends that the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2003 should
form the basis of drugs for price control/monitoring. To support the process the Government
should announce the ceiling price of all drugs contained in the NLEM on the basis of the
weighted average price of the top three brands by value of single ingredient formulations
prevailing in the market as on 1.4.2005. In cases where there are less than three brands, the
average of all existing brands would be taken. The ORG-IMS data can be used for this purpose
initially with a retail margin of 20%. For drugs which are not reflected in ORG-IMS data, the
NPPA should prepare the necessary information based on market data collection. In the case of
formulations which involve a combination of more than one drug in the NLEM, the ceiling price
would be the weighted average of the applicable ceiling prices of its constituents. Excise duty
should continue to be payable on the actual MRP of the individual medicines. In the case of
drugs not contained in the NLEM, intensive monitoring should be carried out, for any new
formulations based on existing APIs, manufacturer concerned would be required to submit its
intended price along with application for marketing approval to the regulator, which would be
granted only if the indicated price is consistent with relevant ceiling price. The NLEM should be
revised every three years.
6. Patented Products:
All patented drugs and formulations should compulsorily be brought under price negotiation
prior to the grant of marketing approval. The reference price to be used for such negotiations
will be the prevailing price of the closest therapeutic equivalent in the domestic market/lowest
price at which the drug is marketed internationally.
7. Bulk Procurement:
Bulk purchase mechanism should be streamlined to ensure that the current malpractices are
curbed so that the prices reflect the true value of quality drugs. In order to reduce the financial
burden of public health system it would be appropriate that a lower ceiling price is fixed for the
bulk procurement by Government.
8. Promotion of Generics:
286
Public procurement and distribution of drugs through the public health system should mainly be
for generic drugs. Quality certification may be provided free to dedicated generic drug
manufacturers and there should be no control on price or distribution margins specified for
generic drugs.
9. Access Arrangements:
The low volume high priced drugs such as cancer drugs, anti AIDS/HIV drugs may be exempted
from the payment of excise duty, custom duty, octroi and other levies if any. This benefit should
be passed on to the patients.
10. Public Sector Undertakings:
The role of PSUs producing drugs should be recognized and all Departments of Central
Government must be advised to first procure their drugs from the PSUs at prices approved by
NPPA for the drugs covered under the essential category. For other drugs produced by these
PSUs, procurement may be done at prices worked out by a committee constituted for this
purpose.
11. Scheme for BPL families:
The Central Government has set up a National Illness Assistance Fund (NIAF) under which
assistance to states up to 50% of their share is provided out of this fund in the State illness Fund
(SIF) set up by respective states. A BPL patient is provided financial assistance up to Rs.1.50
lakhs. The Task Force feels that there is an imperative need for the states to set up the SIFs and
revolving funds in all Government hospitals for making available medicines free of cost to BPL
families.
12. Excise Duty Relief:
The Task Force has recommended to reduce the excise duty on all pharmaceutical products from
16% to 8%. In order to mitigate the rigors faced by and to provide a level playing field for small
scale pharma units to enhance the exemption limit of small scale units from the present Rs.1
crore to Rs.5 crore.
13. Research and Development:
Keeping in view the introduction of Product Patent Regime in India the Task Force has
recommended that fiscal incentives should be granted over a much longer period of time, say 10
years, rather than the limited period extensions that are being made presently. The corpus of
287
Rs.150 crore under the Pharmaceutical Research and Development Support Fund (PRDSF) needs
to be sufficiently increased over the next 5 years.
14. Facilitating Schedule M Implementation:
A special fund should be created for providing interest subsidy on borrowings to small scale
pharma units adopting Schedule M implementation. This assistance should be in addition to any
other financial assistance.
15. Public Awareness:
To create public awareness and to educate the people, a dedicated web site needs to be created in
addition to other possible modes of enhancing public awareness like public literatures, booklets,
newsletters/magazines etc.
16. Settlement Commission as a Device for funding Certain Activities:
A Settlement Commission on the lines of constituted by the Income Tax Department needs to be
constituted for settling the cases of past and future arrears of overcharging from the drug
companies. All on-going court cases should be brought before the proposed settlement
commission and efforts be made to arrive at some workable settlement.
INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER ISSUES
The various suggestions made in the preceding chapters require a number of legal and
institutional changes for them to become effective. In particular, there is a pressing need to bring
drug prices under a new legislation instead of being governed by an order passed under the
Essential Commodities Act. Equally, if not more, important is the need to strengthen and
reorganize the drug regulatory system, both at the Centre and the States. In fact, the present state
of drug regulatory institutions leaves much to be desired not just from the pricing angle, but from
the drug approval and quality enforcement dimensions as well.
Drugs and Therapeutics (Regulation) Act
It is suggested that the Drugs (Prices) Control Order (DPCO), which is presently an order under
the Essential Commodities Act (ECA), should be converted to a legislative enactment – The
Drugs and Therapeutics (Regulation) Act (DATA). The main features of this Act are as follow:
1. Empowering government or its designated authority to impose a price or limit the
increase in the price or control the price in any other manner of any individual, class or category
of drug or therapeutic product for any period of time it deems appropriate in public interest.
288
2. Requiring the government or its designated authority to clearly lay down the principles
governing or the reasons leading to imposition of any such price control or any deviations
permitted there from.
3. Authorizing the government or its designated authority to seek or compel disclosure of
any information or data relevant to its functioning from all manufacturers, marketers, distributors
or retailers of drugs and therapeutic products.
4. Requiring all companies involved in the manufacture or marketing of drugs and
therapeutic products to submit authenticated price lists of all their products along with other
relevant details to government or its designated authority on a regular basis with a frequency to
be specified by the latter.
5. Granting the government or its designated authority the power to approve a brand name
for a specific product, to prevent changes in the composition of a product marketed under an
approved brand name and to determine the nomenclature under which a product can be
marketed, if necessary, for all drugs and therapeutic products.
6. Providing penalties, for violation or non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the
Rules framed and orders issues under the Act. These penalties could be graded – fines,
temporary withdrawal of marketing approval, withholding of marketing approval, compounding
of offences, etc:
7. The powers and provisions of the DATA would be in addition to those contained in the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Essential Commodities Act.
Central Drug Regulatory System
The Task Force considered two alternative structures for the central drug regulatory system. The
first envisages a separation of functions between two central agencies – one dealing with all
matters relating to drug approvals and quality assurance, and the other dealing with all matters
related to market behavior, including pricing and availability. This essentially involves the
conversion of the office of the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) to form an autonomous
National Drug Authority (NDA), on the one hand, and strengthening of the National
Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), on the other. The second is based on the proposal
made by the Planning Commission in the Mid-term Appraisal of the Tenth Five Year Plan to
establish a National Authority on Drugs and Therapeutics (NADT), which would integrate the
289
offices of DCGI, CDSCO and the NPPA, along with all the powers and functions of these
bodies.
There is something to be said for both these alternatives. As far as the first is concerned, the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare favours this structure on the grounds that the two functions
are completely distinct, require distinct skill sets, and have separate obligations. Current global
practices also distinctly separate the regulatory and price administration of the pharmaceutical
sector. Moreover, the separation of powers ensures that the NDA remains relatively insulated
from the pulls and pressures emanating from the commercial aspects of the drug industry, and
can therefore focus on therapeutic and quality issues. This avoidance of conflicts of interest is
the most powerful argument in favor of this option, especially in the context of the levels of
governance existing in the country at present. It also involves minimum changes in the existing
institutional structures, and is thus relatively easy to implement. The Mashelkar Committee
2003 has also endorsed such a system.
On the other hand, there are distinct drawbacks as well. In the first place, the NPPA simply does
not have any field formation which can carry out the enforcement functions. This role is
presently being played by the State drug control agencies, which are jurisdictionally under the
DCGI. This arrangement not only reduces the effectiveness of the price regulation mechanism,
but also does not meet the attribute of separation of powers and functions at the operating level.
Second, the presence of multiple regulatory authorities enables drug companies to engage in
‘forum shopping’, i.e. exploit the presence of a multiplicity of agencies without adequate
coordination to their own advantage. Third, and most importantly, it should be clear from the
preceding chapter that the nature of price regulation that is being proposed in this Report
involves close linkage between the therapeutic aspects of drugs and the price regulation regime.
It would, therefore, be inefficient to operate this system through two separate agencies. The
integrated regulatory system envisaged by the NADT obviates the above problems, but it does
involve the creation of a super regulator, with the possible problems of conflict of interest.
Keeping in view the above considerations, therefore, it is felt that creation of the NADT may be
kept as a long run objective towards which the central drug regulatory system should evolve.
For the interim, however, the dual structure may be implemented with the following additional
dimensions:
290
In order to strengthen the price and market regulatory system, separate dedicated cells may be
created in the State drug control agencies for undertaking these functions under the direction of
the NPPA. If necessary, these may be funded by the Central Government.
The manpower, skill set and technical capabilities of the NPPA may be suitably enhanced to take
care of the additional responsibilities.
The revamped NPPA and the NDA must set up standing arrangements for addressing over-
lapping issues such as price negotiations and brand approvals in a coordinated manner.
National Authority on Drugs and Therapeutics
As has already been mentioned, all things considered, in the long run a merger of the NDA and
the NPPA appears desirable and should be worked towards. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act
would have to be amended for this purpose. The NADT would also be the designated authority
of the government for implementation of DATA.
Ideally the NADT should be an independent regulatory agency under the Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare with appropriate statutory backing from DATA, but for the immediate future it
may be set up as an attached office through the issue of the necessary government orders.
The NADT should constitute two Expert Committees which would be responsible for: (a) regular
updating and revision of the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM); and (b) Price
negotiations as prescribed under the Rules framed under DATA. These Committees should be
chaired by the Chairman, NADT, and comprise primarily of outside experts drawn from
government Ministries/Departments, ICMR, health professional, pharmacologists, civil society
organizations, etc:
The NADT should not only carry out all the regulatory functions, but also be responsible for the
promotional activities which are mentioned in this Report, such as quality certification and
marking, promotion of generic drugs, maintenance of the public web-site/data base on drug
prices, etc:
The functions proposed to be assigned to the NADT will require a significant enhancement in
both the manpower and the skill sets available in the existing organizations which are proposed
to be merged. In particular, there is need to develop strong capabilities in pharmacoeconomics,
which is completely absent at present. The Mashelkar Committee Report (2003) has detailed the
requirements for the Drug Controller’s office, which should be adopted as the initial blue-print.
291
A summary of the Mashelkar Committee Report is annexed. In addition, a suitable manpower
and training requirement plan should be drawn up for it to effectively carry out the other
functions that have been indicated.
A suitable mechanism for financing the NADT will need to be evolved, especially if it is to be
made into an independent regulator. The Planning Commission has suggested a cess for this
purpose, which could be a possible solution.
Other Regulatory Issues
Since the NADT will be wielding considerably greater powers and authority than any existing
organization, there is need to consider the establishment of an appellate body, and provisions will
have to be made in the Rules framed under the various concerned Acts.
Consistent with the strengthening of the Central drug regulatory system, the state supervisory
and regulatory capacity should also be strengthened. The Centre should financially support state
governments to bring their state drug control formations to a minimum level. The
recommendations of the Mashelkar Committee should be adopted as a blue-print for this
purpose. A beginning has been made by the Ministry of Health which has already undertaken a
Capacity Building Project through World Bank assistance to support the State Governments to
augment their regulatory capacities. This should be continued with even greater vigor in order to
ensure a world-class regulatory system.
Since these institutional changes are likely to take time, the various functions and authority
needed to give effect to the recommendations of this Report will need to be clearly demarcated
between the existing regulatory bodies until they are eventually merged. It is suggested that all
matters relating to pricing should vest in the NPPA, and all other functions, including brand
regulation, be carried out by the NDA. As far as the NPPA is concerned, the following changes
are recommended:
Review the present structure and staffing pattern and strength of NPPA to make it more effective
The tenure of Chairman should be minimum for 2 years
Strengthen the monitoring system of NPPA through appropriate computerization and software
d) Establish a live linkage of NPPA with the State Drug Controllers through a dedicated Drug
Price Monitoring Cell in each of the major States. The full cost of these Cells should be funded
by Central Government for a period of at least 5 years
292
Bulk procurement procedures
Since the long-term operation of the proposed price regulatory mechanism is depending upon the
prices prevailing in bulk procurement activities, it is imperative that the bulk purchase
mechanism be streamlined to ensure that the current malpractices are curbed so that the prices
reflect the true value of quality drugs. Since bulk purchases are a valuable method for enabling
smaller companies to diversify and grow, care should be taken to ensure that the bulk purchase
orders are not so large as to exclude smaller manufacturers if they qualify otherwise.
It is suggested that the following conditions should be considered as minimum criteria for
evaluating bulk purchase operations for inclusion in the reference price computations:
(a) Procurement only from pre-qualified manufacturers and not from middle-men or traders.
(b) GMP compliance of the manufacturer. Although this is now legally required, it needs to
be specified as pre-qualification and enforced.
(c) Minimum three years of track record in sustained production of the concerned drug.
Balance sheets of past three years may be obtained to assess the installed manufacturing capacity
and financial strength of the manufacturer
(d) Post-award inspection of manufacturing facilities
(e) Procurement of preferably generic drugs only.
Bulk procurement systems not conforming to the above requirements should not be taken into
account for working out reference prices.
In order to ensure that bulk purchase data is available from a variety of sources, the government
should consider specifying the above requirements as a condition for any financial support to
States and other designated agencies for procurement of drugs for distribution through the public
health care system.
Role of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs)
It is well recognized that PSUs can play a significant role in ensuring availability and keeping a
check on the prices of drugs produced by them. Whether it was the earthquake in Latur or in
Kutch or the recent floods in Mumbai the PSUs when called upon have come to the forefront in
supplying some of the essential drugs urgently required in such emergencies. The need to have
vibrant public sector pharma enterprises has become all the more pertinent in the era of product
293
patents where, in order to meet a public health crisis, they can be awarded compulsory licences
to make patented medicines. In addition, PSUs can also be an important source of information
on costs of production, if it becomes necessary for price regulation purposes. Finally, the PSUs
can be used for strategic intervention in price formation processes for drugs which may not be
under price regulation.
The existing PSUs have huge installed capacities and operational sing it in its entirety may not be
worthwhile. There is, however, need to revive them to a limited extent (keeping in view their
viability) and to provide them an assured market in the public health system. It is suggested that
all departments of Central Government may be advised to first procure their drugs from these
PSUs at prices approved by NPPA for the drugs covered under the essential category. For other
drugs produced by these enterprises, procurement can be done through the normal tendering
process. Another system can be to have a common Pricing and Supply Committee for all the
Central pharmaceutical PSUs, which can determine the prices of drugs produced by them and
also the list of drugs which must be necessarily produced for the public health system.
Excise Duties
One of the most glaring anomalies in policy is that while the government has laid great emphasis
on moderating the prices of drugs, it continues to tax pharmaceutical products at the same rate as
any other consumer non-durable, namely at 16%. This issue has become particularly visible
since the State governments reduced the applicable VAT rate to 4% in recognition of the
essential nature of pharmaceutical products. It is suggested, therefore, that the excise duty rate
on pharmaceuticals should be reduced to 8%. Ideally, this reduction should be applicable only to
the essential drugs and their formulations, but in view of the complexity of monitoring and
enforcement, it is suggested that it be applied across the board. At most, the loss to the
exchequer on this account would be less than Rs. 1,000 crore.
To make matters worse, the government issued a notification on 7th January, 2005 vide which it
levied excise duty on drugs on the MRP. An abatement of 40% in the MRP was given to allow
for marketing and other expenses. This means that excise duty is to be levied on 60% of the
MRP. This has brought about a sharp reaction from the small scale pharmaceutical industry due
to the sudden increase in tax burden which created a big anomaly owing to the tax free areas of
Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal and J&K. There has been a very intense and vocal demand from
industry for giving relief to these units. On the basis of the experience of the last few months,
294
the impact of this measure on the small scale pharmaceutical units reveal that there are both
positive and negative effects. These are as follow:
Positive Effects:a) The biggest positive effect has been on the working and practices of the small units. It
has brought about the much needed discipline in terms of reasonableness in the costing and
prices of drugs produced by them which are mostly branded generics. There is a pressure to keep
the prices low to avoid a proportionate increase in the excise duty burden. This was absent
earlier.
b) There has been a downward trend in prices of most of the branded generic drugs
produced by small scale units as the incidence of excise duty on 60% of the MRP becomes
significantly higher than what it was on the ex-factory price .In order to keep the burden low the
MRP has been reduced in most cases
Negative Effects: a) The major negative effect has been the wide disparity created in the tax burden between
the units established in the zero-duty areas and rest of the country .The small scale units in other
parts of the country find it difficult to compete with their counterparts in these areas and face the
threat of closure unless they also shift to those areas or are provided some relief.
b) Possible loss of revenue to the government due to large scale movement of
new/established units into zero duty areas and tendency to pay lower duty by units in other areas
due to evasion as a result of very high tax incidence ( on 60 percent of MRP as compared to ex-
factory price earlier )
c) Another adverse effect has been on the implementation of Schedule M of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act,1940. It is estimated that about 10 percent of the small units have already
implemented it while another 10 percent were in the process of doing so. Due to the uncertainty
and higher tax burden leading to reduced capacity to finance the high cost involved in the
implementation of Schedule M its implementation by these units has reportedly been stopped
midway.
On balance, it can be concluded that the MRP based excise is in the long term interest of industry
and should stay. However to mitigate its rigours and to provide a level playing field for small
units it is essential that the exemption limit of small scale units is enhanced from the present Rs.
1 crores to Rs. 5 crores.
295
Both these steps, namely the reduction in the excise duty rate and the enhancement of the
exemption limit, are likely to provide the much needed relief to the small scale units leading to
their survival, improved quality and better tax compliance, which would have a positive effect on
the revenues of Government. In any event, the loss to the exchequer is not likely to be large.
Encouraging R&D
The introduction of product patent regime in India has made it imperative for augmenting
resources for greater R & D in pharmaceutical sector. The present level of R&D in this sector is
quite low as compared to most of the developed countries. While the pharmaceutical companies
need to step up their expenditure on R & D it is necessary on the part of Government to provide
liberal incentives and resources for activities related to drug discovery and drug development.
The following incentives are available for R&D purposes in the pharmaceutical sector:
a) Section 80-1B(8A) of Income Tax Act : Any company carrying on Scientific R&D, deduction
of 100% of Profits and Gains of such business for a period of 10 consecutive assessment years,
beginning from the assessment year.
b) Section 35(2AB)(1) of Income Tax Act: A company engaged in the business of
biotechnology, drugs, pharmaceuticals, etc. incurring any expenditure on scientific research
(excluding cost of land or building) on in-house R&D facility, a deduction of a sum equal to
150% of expenditure so incurred is allowed
c) A corpus fund of Rs. 150 crores to fund R&D projects.
It has been suggested that domestic R&D activity should be encouraged through relaxations
being made in price regulations which would otherwise be applicable. The Task Force, however,
does not favor this approach since most such suggestions are bad in law and can also lead to
unforeseen distortions in the regulatory system. It is felt that a better method would be to
provide a more liberal fiscal regime for domestic R&D. Some suggestions in this regard are as
follow:
The benefit of 150% weighted exemption under section 35(2AB) may be increased to
200%.
296
Section 35(2AB) may be extended to depreciation on investment made in land and
building for dedicated research facilities, expenditure incurred for obtaining regulatory
approvals and filing of patents abroad.
It should also be examined as to whether the expenditure made on clinical trials by the
Indian companies should be made eligible for the purpose of above mentioned incentives.
The fiscal incentives are at present only available up to 31st March, 2007. Since R&D
activity has to be carried over long periods of time, fiscal incentives should be granted
over a much longer period, say 10 years, rather than the limited period extensions that are
being made presently.
At present, the Pharmaceutical Research and Development Support Fund (PRDSF) corpus of Rs.
150 crores (where only interest income is available for spending) is utilized for funding R&D
projects of Research Institutions and industry. It is not sufficient to meet the present day and the
emerging requirements of this sector. It needs to be sufficiently augmented over the next five
years. Immediately it should be converted into an annual grant of Rs. 150 crores, and thereafter it
should be suitably increased in a phased manner over a period of next five years.
CHAPTER-9 LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Limitations
Work on the project “study on pricing policies of medicines in pharmaceutical companies was a
wonderful experience. But every project has some limitations. I too faced large no of difficulties
while going through the project.
Some of them are as follow:-
297
Pricing of the medicines in pharmaceutical companies is long and complicated
process which includes government regulation, profit margin, competitive angle etc.
so it was difficult to study all the aspects simultaneously.
Pricing strategies of a product is a confidential data of a company which is not open
to everyone so it was difficult to get the whole information regarding pricing of
drugs in pharmaceutical companies.
And lastly time was the limit for the project given.
Conclusion
Changes to the approval process for generic drugs made by the Hatch-Waxman Act, combined
with the changes in demand for generic drugs discussed in Chapter 2, have prompted a dramatic
rise in generic competition since 1984. That increased competition has helped hold down the
average price of a multiple-source prescription drug by encouraging the substitution of lower-
priced generic drugs for brand-name ones. In 1994, such substitution saved final purchasers of
prescription drugs through retail pharmacies roughly $8 billion to $10 billion (at retail prices).
Manufacturers of generic drugs, who sell nearly identical versions of the same product, compete
more intensely on the basis of price than do manufacturers of innovator drugs, who compete
more on the basis of quality and other differences between products. Average list and invoice
prices of brand-name drugs do not typically fall after generic competitors enter the market. On a
selective basis, however, manufacturers of brand-name drugs do offer discounts and rebates to
some purchasers, and those discounts tend to be larger when generic versions of the drug are
available. The data necessary to determine what volume of purchases is sold at a substantial
discount do not exist. The industry group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America estimates that discounts saved purchasers $5.3 billion in 1994, $3.5 billion of which
went to non-Medicaid purchasers.(69) (That $3.5 billion represented over 5 percent of the value of
non-Medicaid prescription drug sales.)
The extent to which brand-name drugs compete through price is difficult to assess. Limited
empirical evidence suggests that competition between similar brand-name drugs causes their
prices to rise more slowly over time than would otherwise be the case. However, evidence also
suggests that the prices of me-too drugs increase much more rapidly over time than the price of
298
the breakthrough drug. Much of that analysis is based on list prices or average invoice prices,
which do not include many charge-backs and rebates.
Clearly, some price competition is occurring, particularly in the segment of the market that can
negotiate discounts when several similar brand-name drugs are available. As Chapter 2 noted,
that segment of the market is growing with the emergence of PBMs and the proliferation of other
managed care techniques. Still, since the size of discounts and the quantity of drugs sold at a
discount are not known, it is difficult to assess the extent of competition brought about through
discounting.
Responsibility for medicine pricing and access to essential medicines is fragmented and
distributed across different ministries. India has a prolific generic industry with hundreds of
generic equivalents, but with medicines known only by their trade name and brand loyalty
affecting the market. Several public sector departments provide health care to citizens; four were
included in the survey.
The WHO/HAI Price Component data collection and analysis methodology is sufficiently robust
that this case study of eight medicines, in two sectors, within NCT Delhi, has identified several
key issues related to medicine pricing, availability and affordability. This includes several
strengths and weaknesses in the public procurement systems, trade relationships in the private
sector supply chain that skirt government pricing structures, and the cumulative impact that
tariffs are having on medicine prices. With 80% of the population being forced to buy their
medicines out-of-pocket, there is much that the government, the public and the private sectors
can do to increase access to essential medicines.
Few important recommendations:
Government to increase transparency in manufacturer-set MRP or remove the MRP from
non-scheduled medicines.
Bring all medicines under National EML under price control.
Government to remove all tariffs on medicines to increase access.
Develop a policy for generic substitution and generic prescribing.
Establish a working group (from MoH&FW, MoC&F, DCGI, private sector, academics, and
NGOs) to explore ways to bring all essential medicines onto scheduled list.
299
Establish links between procurement offices of central government, DHS, MCD and NDMC
to share information on procurement and reduce replicated effort.
Central government to investigate use of proprietary medicines and local purchases.
All public procurement bodies to enforce reliable delivery from suppliers.
Monitor and evaluate procurement system, procurement price and private sector price at
regular periodic interval by external agency based on a standardized methodology like
WHO/HAI.
This investigation into the price components of medicines in NCT Delhi has shown that the lack
of transparency in medicine prices is impeding access. Improving transparency in pricing and
procedures through continued research and monitoring of systems will have a positive impact on
access to medicines and the health of the people of India.
Recommendations
Post-liberalization, the State clearly has a welfarist and interventionist role, especially in the
areas of health, education and removal of hunger. The legitimacy of the State as an instrument of
ensuring the right to health care and distributional justice needs to be asserted.
Price regulation of medicines is a key public policy measure for health of India’s
teeming masses. Only the Government of India can do it. Like it has done for cell
phone rates, insurance premia, electricity tariff, bank interest rates, etc.
All market distorting factors like irrational fixed dose combinations, hazardous and
bannable medicines should be removed.
Unfair and unethical practices of drug companies like drug promotion, which often
includes fancy gifts, and trips abroad all need to be curbed. These will reduce health
expenditures significantly.
All public health programmes should have a centralized pooled procurement system
like Tamil Nadu and Delhi State governments.
There should be a strict watch on prices of lab investigations, medical procedures and
surgical operations too. Why is it cataract surgery with Intra Ocular Lens Implant
can be done at Rs 600 in the world class Arvind Eye Hospital in Madurai whereas
300
most other “reputed” private hospitals charge Rs 20,000 and above? In fact the
Government happily reimburses the latter for its employees.
As a result of this study, the following recommendations are proposed.
Transparency in procurement in the public sector
The Central Procurement Agency of DHS, NCT Delhi, and MCD procurement system
should be monitored and evaluated periodically to see if they are continuing to meet the
need of the institutions they serve (in terms of availability and accessibility) or whether
the systems need updating.
NDMC to review their technical requirements for manufacturer pre-qualification,
specifically the financial turnover of the company, to be more in-line with other
procurement agencies.
CGHS to re-evaluate their working relationship with HSCC: either HSCC provides the
service they are paid for, or CGHS should identify an alternative procurement agency.
MSO could be considered as an option once their procurement is operational and
transparent but the cost lost to their handling fees must be considered.
The Central Government should develop a rational Essential Medicines List to be used
for procurement for CGHS dispensaries. A strict policy of generic or single molecule
prescribing should be used in CGHS facilities, with a few exceptions granted for certain
conditions and medicines. Procurement in the public sector should be limited to EML
items.
Establish links between procurement offices of central government, DHS, MCD and
NDMC to share information on procurement and reduce replicated effort. A common list
of “black listed” companies is one possibility.
Establish periodic monitoring and evaluation of all public sector procurement agencies.
One option is monitoring and evaluation by an external agency, e.g., study like this based
on a standardized methodology.
Markups in the private sector supply chain
Review the list of scheduled medicines, and ensure that all Essential Medicines have their
price reviewed by the government.
301
Review the NPPA pricing formula, specifically the Maximum Allowable Post-
manufacturing Expenses. Investigate whether the MAPE should be a flat rate, or whether
a staged MAPE could benefit retailer, patients and manufacturers. Develop systems to
monitor scheduled medicine prices, especially with regard to reductions in the prices of
active ingredients over time.
Taxes and tariffs
Government to remove all tariffs on medicines.
Medicine pricing
Government to increase transparency in manufacturer-set MRP or other option is to
remove the MRP from non-scheduled medicines.
Include all essential medicines under the NPPA drug price order.
Establish a working group (from MoH&FW, MoC&F, DCGI, private sector, academics,
and NGOs) to explore ways to bring all essential medicines onto scheduled list.
Promote generic substitution
Develop policies for generic substitution and generic prescribing.
Increase consumer awareness of the wide range of quality-controlled generic equivalents
and the benefits of generic substitution.
Train doctors, pharmacists and patients in generic substitution.
STEPS TO STRENGTHEN THE INDUSTRY
Indian companies need to attain the right product-mix for sustained future growth. Core
competencies will play an important role in determining the future of many Indian
pharmaceutical companies in the post product-patent regime after 2005. Indian companies, in an
effort to consolidate their position, will have to increasingly look at merger and acquisition
options of either companies or products. This would help them to offset loss of new product
options, improve their R&D efforts and improve distribution to penetrate markets.
Research and development has always taken the back seat amongst Indian pharmaceutical
companies. In order to stay competitive in the future, Indian companies will have to refocus and
invest heavily in R&D.
302
The Indian pharmaceutical industry also needs to take advantage of the recent advances in
biotechnology and information technology. The future of the industry will be determined by how
well it markets its products to several regions and distributes risks, its forward and backward
integration capabilities, its R&D, its consolidation through mergers and acquisitions, co-
marketing and licensing agreements.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
REPORTS AND MAGAZINES
1. IMS Health: IMS Intelligence. 360 Global Pharmaceutical Perspectives, 2004.
2. Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, 2004.
3. Indian Government National Pharmaceuticals Policy, January 2006.
4. Pharma Review (The Indian Pharma Reference Guide), August 2005.
5. Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V. Country Report: Information on National
Economies, Chemical Markets and Foreign Trade, June 2005.
303
6. Indian Pharma Machinery Manufacturers Association, 2005.
7. Kotak Securities report, October 2003.
8. PriceWaterhouseCoopers. India-Prescription for Growth, July 2005.
9. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Impact Report, May 2000.
10. Confederation of Indian Industry study, September 2004.
11. Indian Government National Pharmaceuticals Policy, January 2006.
12. Ibid
13. Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India Report to Government,
November 2005.
14. Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, 2004.
15. Pharmabiz, September 8, 2005.
16. SSKI India. Pharmaceuticals-Sweet Pill? February 2006.
17. Pharma Marketletter, January 16, 2006.
18. AARP Data Digest, February 2006.
19. IMS Health data quoted in PharmaWeek, March 16, 2006.
20. Health data presented at Drug, Chemical and Associated Technologies Association
meeting, New York, March 2004.
21. Datamonitor. Biogenerics 2005: A New Level of Complexity, October 2005.
22. Economic Times of India, February 11, 2006.
23. SSKI India. Pharmaceuticals-Sweet Pill? February 2006.
24. Pharma Marketletter, September 12, 2005.
25. Financial Express report, quoted in Pharma Marketletter, April 25, 2005.
26. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Science, Technology &
Industry Working Paper 2005-6: Dynamics of Biotechnology Research and Industry
in India: Statistics, Perspectives and Key Policy, May 2005.
27. Frost & Sullivan. Opportunities for European Pharmaceutical Companies in India, July
2005.
28. Umakanta Sahoo/Chiltern International Private Ltd, India . Clinical Trial Data
Management Outsourcing-India, May 23, 2005.
29. Ibid.
304
30. Kotak Securities report, October 2003.
Websites:
www.cato.org//pubs/regulation/regv23n1/danzon.pdf
http://nppaindia.nic.in/frequent.html#11
http://www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/peruvianhealthministry_impactofiponaccesstomeds_042005
http://www.indlaw.com/guest/DisplayNews.aspx?204B6175-4F83-4E15-A256-BEE79F11880D
http://nppaindia.nic.in/drug_pol86/txt1.html
http://www.whoindia.org/LinkFiles/Commision_on_Macroeconomic_and_Health_02_14
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/heap/article/S0168-8510(09)00102-X/
abstract
http://www.kscourts.org/Kansas-Courts/Supreme-Court/Orders/2009/2009sc006
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/drug_court/ll_drugcourt.nsf/pages/
adrgcrt_drugcrt1rewards
http://medind.nic.in/haa/t06/i1/haat07i1p41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592909/pdf/calstatejmed00078-0030a.pdf
ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE-I
List of Therapeutic Categories for Intensive Monitoring
1. ANTI-INFECTIVE MEDICINES (including Antihelminthics, Antibacterials,
Antileprosy, Antitubercolosis, Antifungals, Antivirals, Antiprotozoals).
2. MEDICINES AFFECTING THE BLOOD (Antianaemia medications and medicines
affecting coagulation).
305
3. CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINES (Antianginal, Antiarrhythmics, Antihypertensives,
medicines used in heart failure, Antithrombotic medicines)
4. MEDICINES ACTING ON RESPIRATORY TRACT (Antiasthmatics, Antitussives)
5. HORMONES, OTHER ENDOCRINE MEDICINES, CONTRACEPTIVES
6. IMMUNOLOGICALS (including Sera, Immunoglobulins, and Vaccines)
7. GASTROINTESTINAL MEDICINES (Including Anti-ulcer medicines, Antiemetics,
Anti-inflammatory medicines, medicines used in diarrhea)
8. PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC MEDICINES
9. ANTICONVULSANTS/ANTIEPILEPTICS
10. ANTINEOPLASTIC, IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVES, AND MEDICINES USED IN
PALLIATIVE CARE
11. ANALGESICS, ANTIPYRETICS, NSAIDS, MEDICINES USE IN RHEUMATOID
DISORDERS
12. ANTIALLERGICS AND MEDICINES USED IN ANAPHYLAXIS
13. BLOOD PRODUCTS AND PLASMA SUBSTITUTES
14. DERMATOLOGICAL MEDICINES
15. DISINFECTANTS AND ANTISEPTICS
16. DIURETICS
17. OPHTHALMOLOGICAL PREPARATIONS
18. VITAMINS AND MINERALS
ANNEXURE-2 List of Abbreviations
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
API Active pharmaceutical ingredient
Assocham Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India
CAGR Compound annual growth rate
cGMP current Good Manufacturing Practice
306
CRAMS Contract manufacturing and research services
CRO Contract research organization
DMF Drug master file
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
DPCO Drug Price Control Order
EMEA European Medicines Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration (U.S.)
GSK GlaxoSmithKline
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IPR Intellectual property rights
ITES Information technology-enabled services
M&A Mergers and acquisitions
MNC Multinational company
NCE New chemical entity
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OPPI Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India
OTC “Over-the-counter” medical products
Pharmexcil Pharma Export Promotion Council
PPP Public/private partnerships
R&D Research and development
TB Tuberculosis
TCS Tata Consultancy Services
TRIPs Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights
VAT Value-added tax
WTO World Trade Organization
Annexure - 3
List of Bulk Drugs Reserved for Public Sector
1. Streptomycin
2. Tetracycline
3. Oxytetracycline
307
4. Gentamycin
5. Sulphaguanidine
6. Sulphadimidine
7. Sulphamethoxy-pyridazine
8. Sulphadimethoxine
9. Vitamin B1
10. Vitamin B2
11. Folic Acid
12. Quinine
13. Analgin
14. Phenobarbitone
15. Morphine
N.B. Bulk drugs would include salts, esters and derivatives, if any.
Annexure - 4
Group of Bulk Drugs Covered by Broad-Ranging Groups
1. All types of Penicillins
2. Erythromycin, Griseofulvin, Rifampicin
3. Chloramphenicol and its intermediates namely L-Base.
4. 6-APA and 7-ADCA from Potassium Pencillin G
5. Semi-synthetic Penicillins like Ampicillin, Amoxicillin etc.
6. All types of Cephalsporins
7. Sulpha Drugs other than those reserved for Public Sector
8. Steroids & Hormones including the following Prednisolone, Prednisone, Hydrocortisone,
Beta-methasone, Ethinyl Oestradiol, Norethisterone, Norgestrel, Testosterone,
Progesterons etc.
9. Theophylline, Aminophylline, Hydroxyethyl-Theophylline -Xanthinol Nicotinate and
Synthetic Caffeine
10. All Barbiturates other than Phenobabarbitone
11. Analgin , Isopropylantipyrine
308
12. Chlorpromazine, Prochloroperazine, Promethazine, Trifluoperazine, Triflupromazine
13. Chloroquine, Amodiaquine
14. Oxphenbutazone, Phenylbutazone
15. Diphenydramine, Bromodiphenhydramine
16. Hydrocholorothiazide, Cyclopentazide
17. Chlorophenesin Mephenesin
18. Xylocaine, Procaine, Benzocaine, Prilocaine
19. Metronidazole Tinidazole
20. Tobutamide Chlorpramamide
21. Acetazolamide Thiacetazone
22. Diazepam, Chlordiazepoxide, Oxazepam, Nitrazepam, Lorazepam
23. Pheniramide, Chlorpheniramine
24. Ibuprofen, Ketoprofen, Flurbiprofen, Naproxen
25. Salbutamol, Terbutaline
26. Furazolidine, Nitrofuratoin, Nitrofurazon, Furaltadone
27. Chlorcyclizine, Cyclizine, Meclozine, Buclizine, Diethyl Carbam Zine Citrate
28. Propranolol, Atenolol, Metroprolol, Oxprerolol, Pindolol
29. Mebendazole, Thiabendazole, Benbendazole
30. Drugs obtained by extraction from plant material such as Belladonna, Hyocymine,
Sennosides, Digoxin, Ammalicine, Pesperpine, Vincristine, Vinblastine, Quinine,
Quinidine, Emetine, Strychnine, Brucine etc.
N.B. - Bulk drugs would include salts, esters and derivatives if any.
309
i