course change

Indian government may ask doctors to prescribe medicines under generic names. Is it practical?

With branded drugs making up 90% of the market, the move may end up missing the wood for the trees.

On April 17, while inaugurating a charity hospital in Surat, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the government intended to move a law to ensure that doctors prescribe medicines by their generic names only. The proposal has generated a heated conversation in the media and in the pharma industry.

Generics are medicines on which patents have expired. They are sold either as branded products or as unbranded products under their generic names. These generic names are internationally agreed short names called International Non-Proprietary Names. For example, paracetamol is the name for a pain relieving and fever reducing medication and Crocin is one brand name of paracetamol. For the purposes of this article, we will refer to unbranded generics simply as generic medicines.

The suggestion that doctors must write prescriptions in generic names is based on the idea that products sold as unbranded generic medicines are cheaper than others. This premise itself is not true for all generic medicines all the time. Retail pharmacists, in turn, have little incentive in stocking and selling low-price generic medicines since they have lower profit margins. Retail pharmacies have also no interest in selling low-priced branded medicines unless they are fast moving too.

In 2008, the government launched a chain of pharmacies called Jan Aushadhi to supply inexpensive generic medicines. In the last nine years, only a few such stores have been operational and they often have had stockouts and other problems. India has seven lakh retail pharmacy shops and still many rural areas are underserved. There are fewer than 10,000 Jan Aushadhis. A person seeking these medicines in a city would likely have to go to one of these few Jan Aushadhi stores negotiating dense traffic in an urban jungle or travel from a village to the nearby town – all to save a few rupees. This would only make sense for someone buying medicines for three to six months for a chronic condition like diabetes or hypertension.

Advocates of rational therapy and comprehensive public health originally preferred generic medicines to branded medicines because brands are more expensive. The price of a branded medicine includes the manufacturer’s marketing costs spent on “educating” the prescribing doctor. This “education” or drug promotion often extends to gifts and paid holidays and foreign jaunts for doctors. Companies also undertake brand promotion to distinguish their product from a rival’s – both being the same out-of-patent drug – or to distinguish it from a generic medicine with the claim of better quality than the chemically identical drug made by a small- or medium-scale pharmaceutical enterprise.

Generics, brands and quality

The size of a company does not necessarily ensure that the quality of its drugs is better or is as per regulatory norms. Quality is a function of how much a pharmaceutical company cares for the patient and for its reputation. Big products of well-known companies routinely get hauled up by state food and drug administrations for poor quality or for failing in some parameter listed in the pharmacopeia.

Drug quality can also be affected by factors outside the manufacturer’s control – the transport from the factory through the warehouse to the trade chain and onwards to storage facilities at the hospital or at the patient’s home.

The only way that a regulatory authority can systematically ensure good quality of medicines over a sustained period of time is strict quality control, audits and deterrent punishment of companies violating regulatory standards. Neither prescribing doctors nor patients can, normally, second guess the quality of branded or generic medicines without actual testing. .

What’s the price difference?

It is generally true that generic name products are less expensive than their brand equivalents. Big companies also make generic name products at very competitive prices. Generic medicines of quality compliant companies work as well as their big branded equivalents, and indeed they do and why not – for the process of manufacture is the same.

The total domestic pharmaceutical formulations market is about Rs one lakh crore. The market for generic name medicines is worth about Rs 10,000 crore or 10% of the domestic pharmaceutical formulations market. Medicines on the National List of Essential Medicines 2015 that are under price control constitute less than 12% of the total market of Rs one lakh crore. Another four percent of the market are useful medicines that have been put under price control by the government under Para 19 of the Drug Price Control Order 2013. .

At least 90% of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical market, therefore, consists of sale of branded products. If the government does institute a rule that doctors must prescribe only generic names, a patient will, in most cases, still end up buying a branded drug because as already pointed out generic medicines have low margins and therefore unlikely to be stocked by the retail pharmacist. This therefore does not ensure that the cost of his medication will come down by generic name prescriptions.

Doctors could end up writing an “official” prescription of only generic names and write an “unofficial” one recommending particular brands.

Also the pharmacist cannot legally substitute a generic for a brand, or brand for a generic, or brand for another brand. This law needs to be changed.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivers his address at the inauguration of the Kiran Multispeciality Hospital, in Surat, on April 17, 2017, where he suggested that doctors might soon have to write only generic name prescriptions. (Photo: IANS)
Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivers his address at the inauguration of the Kiran Multispeciality Hospital, in Surat, on April 17, 2017, where he suggested that doctors might soon have to write only generic name prescriptions. (Photo: IANS)

The market for fixed dose combinations is about 45% of the total market and worth about Rs 45,000 crores. To prescribe these medications under generic names, a doctor will have to write explicitly the generic constituents of the fixed dose combination in every prescription. For example, a doctor writing a prescription for Corex, will have to write chlorpheniramine maleate and codeine phosphate, or amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid instead of Augmentin. These are simpler medications. Many fixed-dose combinations like multivitamin products have between three and 10 ingredients. So for at least for 45 % of the market, the move to get prescribing doctors to write prescriptions in generic names will be a non-starter.

Duties of doctors

It is for some of these reasons that the September 2016 amendment to the Indian Medical Council’s Code of Conduct that advises generic prescription by doctors as part of their “duties and responsibilities”, has gone nowhere. If the intention of the amendment was serious, it should have stated upfront that it is mandatory for doctors to prescribe by generic names failing which they would be liable for prosecution. The amendment also does not state that doctors should prescribe only in generic names.

In the eight months since September 2016, no doctor has been hauled up for not prescribing in generic names and not complying with their prescribed duties and responsibilities. Presumably because nobody made a complaint to the Medical Council of India.

The other requirement of the September 2016 amendment that as part of their duties, doctors must “ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs” also seems to be a non-starter again because a significant part of sales are irrational fixed dose combinations.

Once again, in announcing a radical sounding policy, the government has missed the devil in the details as well as the bigger picture. It is not really clear in the light of the above problems, how the government will ensure compliance without making other systemic changes we suggest below.

The big picture

The larger goal of such announcements like the one the PM made in Surat ought to be affordable access to quality medicines as part of free universal access to healthcare services. With the government’s push for privatisation and insurance-based access, the dream of universal health care for all seems to be receding.

To actually have better access to medicines, we need, at the minimum, the following:

  • All formulations, representation and dosages of an enlarged list of essential and life-saving drugs to be put under price control.
  • The market must be rid of all currently licensed irrational fixed dose combinations and useless and/or harmful medicines.
  • The method of fixing price control in Drug Price Control Orders 2013 must be changed to a cost-based ceiling price determination. The current simple average formula legitimises high margins of up to 3000% over the cost of the product. So, methods of price control also need much more fine tuning.
  • Laws for enabling substitution of generic and branded equivalents by pharmacists need to be introduced.
  • A free medicine and diagnostics scheme in all states on the lines of such programmes in Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan.
  • A fully functioning public health system with free healthcare for all like in the United Kingdom, Canada and Scandinavian countries.
  • No brands for medicines that are out of patent as is the practice in well regulated countries.
  • Briefer officially approved trade names for all rational fixed dose combinations so that doctors do not have to painfully write out the generic names of their multiple constituents.
  • Creative use of government use compulsory licence provisions in the Patents Act to ensure competition in costly patented drugs and thereby make them less costly.

The writer works with LOCOST, Vadodara and the All-India Drug Action Network.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

How sustainable farming practices can secure India's food for the future

India is home to 15% of the world’s undernourished population.

Food security is a pressing problem in India and in the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), it is estimated that over 190 million people go hungry every day in the country.

Evidence for India’s food challenge can be found in the fact that the yield per hectare of rice, one of India’s principal crops, is 2177 kgs per hectare, lagging behind countries such as China and Brazil that have yield rates of 4263 kgs/hectare and 3265 kgs/hectare respectively. The cereal yield per hectare in the country is also 2,981 kgs per hectare, lagging far behind countries such as China, Japan and the US.

The slow growth of agricultural production in India can be attributed to an inefficient rural transport system, lack of awareness about the treatment of crops, limited access to modern farming technology and the shrinking agricultural land due to urbanization. Add to that, an irregular monsoon and the fact that 63% of agricultural land is dependent on rainfall further increase the difficulties we face.

Despite these odds, there is huge potential for India to increase its agricultural productivity to meet the food requirements of its growing population.

The good news is that experience in India and other countries shows that the adoption of sustainable farming practices can increase both productivity and reduce ecological harm.

Sustainable agriculture techniques enable higher resource efficiency – they help produce greater agricultural output while using lesser land, water and energy, ensuring profitability for the farmer. These essentially include methods that, among other things, protect and enhance the crops and the soil, improve water absorption and use efficient seed treatments. While Indian farmers have traditionally followed these principles, new technology now makes them more effective.

For example, for soil enhancement, certified biodegradable mulch films are now available. A mulch film is a layer of protective material applied to soil to conserve moisture and fertility. Most mulch films used in agriculture today are made of polyethylene (PE), which has the unwanted overhead of disposal. It is a labour intensive and time-consuming process to remove the PE mulch film after usage. If not done, it affects soil quality and hence, crop yield. An independently certified biodegradable mulch film, on the other hand, is directly absorbed by the microorganisms in the soil. It conserves the soil properties, eliminates soil contamination, and saves the labor cost that comes with PE mulch films.

The other perpetual challenge for India’s farms is the availability of water. Many food crops like rice and sugarcane have a high-water requirement. In a country like India, where majority of the agricultural land is rain-fed, low rainfall years can wreak havoc for crops and cause a slew of other problems - a surge in crop prices and a reduction in access to essential food items. Again, Indian farmers have long experience in water conservation that can now be enhanced through technology.

Seeds can now be treated with enhancements that help them improve their root systems. This leads to more efficient water absorption.

In addition to soil and water management, the third big factor, better seed treatment, can also significantly improve crop health and boost productivity. These solutions include application of fungicides and insecticides that protect the seed from unwanted fungi and parasites that can damage crops or hinder growth, and increase productivity.

While sustainable agriculture through soil, water and seed management can increase crop yields, an efficient warehousing and distribution system is also necessary to ensure that the output reaches the consumers. According to a study by CIPHET, Indian government’s harvest-research body, up to 67 million tons of food get wasted every year — a quantity equivalent to that consumed by the entire state of Bihar in a year. Perishables, such as fruits and vegetables, end up rotting in store houses or during transportation due to pests, erratic weather and the lack of modern storage facilities. In fact, simply bringing down food wastage and increasing the efficiency in distribution alone can significantly help improve food security. Innovations such as special tarpaulins, that keep perishables cool during transit, and more efficient insulation solutions can reduce rotting and reduce energy usage in cold storage.

Thus, all three aspects — production, storage, and distribution — need to be optimized if India is to feed its ever-growing population.

One company working to drive increased sustainability down the entire agriculture value chain is BASF. For example, the company offers cutting edge seed treatments that protect crops from disease and provide plant health benefits such as enhanced vitality and better tolerance for stress and cold. In addition, BASF has developed a biodegradable mulch film from its ecovio® bioplastic that is certified compostable – meaning farmers can reap the benefits of better soil without risk of contamination or increased labor costs. These and more of the company’s innovations are helping farmers in India achieve higher and more sustainable yields.

Of course, products are only one part of the solution. The company also recognizes the importance of training farmers in sustainable farming practices and in the safe use of its products. To this end, BASF engaged in a widespread farmer outreach program called Samruddhi from 2007 to 2014. Their ‘Suraksha Hamesha’ (safety always) program reached over 23,000 farmers and 4,000 spray men across India in 2016 alone. In addition to training, the company also offers a ‘Sanrakshan® Kit’ to farmers that includes personal protection tools and equipment. All these efforts serve to spread awareness about the sustainable and responsible use of crop protection products – ensuring that farmers stay safe while producing good quality food.

Interested in learning more about BASF’s work in sustainable agriculture? See here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of BASF and not by the Scroll editorial team.