Birender Sangwan’s parents wanted him to be a doctor.
For two years, Sangwan even prepared for the medical entrance examinations in India before finally giving up. “I was always scared of hospitals,” he said in an interview at his modest two-room office at New Delhi’s Rohini court complex. “I still get dizzy and feel like vomiting when I go to hospitals.”
But in September 2014, he went to the Metro Hospital in Faridabad, a suburb of Delhi. A friend’s brother needed a coronary stent—wire mesh planted in an artery to open up blood flow—fitted into his heart. The hospital charged his friend more than Rs1 lakh for this, without mentioning the device’s maximum retail price. “I asked the doctor to provide us with the purchase bill for the stent,” Sangwan said. “He refused.”
That refusal is the reason why 37-year-old Sangwan is at the centre of the storm sweeping through India’s Rs6.7 lakh crore ($100 billion) healthcare industry today.
A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the affable lawyer in 2015 coaxed the Indian government to crack the whip on the country’s Rs3,300 crore ($531 million) coronary stent industry, ending years of rampant profiteering.
In a country where 30 million people suffer from cardiovascular problems and over two million die of heart attacks and strokes each year, stents have become essential. Every year, over 200,000 heart surgeries take place in the country. But this demand has stoked a racket of extraordinary proportions: Government data published last month showed that hospitals in Asia’s third-largest economy could be selling stents at margins of up to 654%.
Not any more, though.
On Feb. 13, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), the primary agency for fixing drug prices, notified a price cap (pdf) of Rs7,260 for bare metal stents (those without any coatings) and Rs29,600 for modern drug eluting stents. The latter have a polymer coating, which gradually releases a drug to ensure that the blockage doesn’t reoccur.
So far, the average retail price for a bare metal stent was Rs45,000, while drug eluting stents were priced at around Rs1.20 lakh.
In a five-page order, the drug pricing authority explained that the move was made after an analysis of pricing data and extensive consultations.
During deliberations, it was found that huge unethical markups are charged at each stage in the supply chain of coronary stents, resulting in irrational, restrictive, and exorbitant prices in a failed market system driven by information asymmetry between the patient and doctors, pushing patients to financial misery; and whereas under such extraordinary circumstances, there is an urgent necessity, in public interest, to fix the ceiling price of coronary stents to bring respite to patients.
Lawyer turned crusader
Born into a middle class family in Kohna, Sangwan grew up in the nondescript Haryana village till he left for the capital to study political science at Delhi University. After graduating in political science, Sangwan turned to study law from Maharshi Dayanand University in Rohtak, Haryana.
In 2007, he enrolled as a lawyer at the Rohini court, where cases from the west and north west districts of Delhi are heard. “For three years, it was a struggle, because I hardly knew anyone and it was tough to find cases. Most of the cases I attended to were criminal ones,” Sangwan said. Three years into the profession, he added civil cases and writ petitions to his repertoire. By 2013, he was handling PILs.
Then, in September 2014, Sangwan witnessed the Metro Hospital episode. “The total bill at the hospital was more than Rs3.2 lakh,” Sangwan said. “That is really expensive for a country like India.”
Soon, he filed a query under the Right to Information Act to find out the number of hospitals in Delhi that performed angioplasty. He found 54 such hospitals and the rates of stents varied across the facilities.
A month later, bothered by what he calls doctors’ brutality, Sangwan filed a complaint with India’s health ministry. In November 2014, Sangwan filed another RTI to see if stents came under the drugs category or metal category.
The crusade had begun.
The government responded in December, informing him that stents came under the Drug and Cosmetic Act, but wasn’t covered under the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM). This list identifies medicines that must be made affordable for citizens. So, in February 2015, he filed a PIL at the Delhi high court (HC) to get stents included in NLEM. The court asked India’s chemical and fertiliser ministry—under oversees the department of pharmaceuticals—to take action.
There was no response for months. In October 2015, Sangwan filed a contempt notice at the HC citing the government’s laxity.
It was only in July 2016 that the Narendra Modi government notified the addition of stents in the NLEM. Sangwan wasn’t done, though. In December, he filed another PIL seeking a limit on the maximum retail price of stents. This was followed by a HC order asking the government to fix the rates. Finally, on Feb. 13, the government placed the cap.
“Our fight isn’t against the stent makers,” said Sangwan, “It is against the distributors and hospitals who have been extorting patients.”
Margin mania
“If you look at a distributor, it is a highly working capital intensive industry for two reason. One is the inventory, the other is the outstanding (payments),” explained Ganesh P Sabat, CEO of Sahajanand Medical Technologies, one of India’s dozen or so domestic stent manufacturers.
The situation, according to Sabat, looks something like this. If a distributor stocks between 120 and 200 stents per hospital, with each device priced at between Rs25,000 and Rs30,000, the working capital requirement is upwards of Rs30 lakh per hospital. It’s obviously a lot more for more expensive stents. On top of that, there’s a possibility of about 10% of the stocked stents become unusable after they cross their expiry date, and approximately 5% of stents have a chance of incurring some damage during transport or storage.
Alongside, there’s the issue of outstanding payments, particularly for government healthcare schemes, where the payout can take anything between six months and a year. All through, the distributor has to pay an interest rate of about 15%.
“Because the distributor makes this substantial investment in the working capital, they end up asking for 30-40% margins,” said Sabat, “And the hospital adds its own margin on top of the distributors.”
Sangwan, too, agrees that it isn’t the manufacturers who are inflating prices. “The manufacturers have been selling at the same price for years,” he said. “The distributors, hospitals, and doctors are hand in glove with each other and they are the ones making the money. The product should come directly from the manufacturers to the patients.”
India’s healthcare service providers cannot deny that such malpractices are rampant. To start with, only about 1% of the hospitals in the country are accredited, the rest are wont to flout norms and rules. Industry leaders, speaking on the condition of anonymity, argue that once accredited, the margins of bona fide healthcare service providers come under pressure because of the cost of following prescribed norms and putting in place the required systems. And with shrinking margins, hospitals come to increasingly rely on pharmacy sales, medical devices, and medical diagnostic testing. The cap on stent pricing, therefore, will hit their balance sheets further, unless it is made up for by increasing the overall cost of cardiac procedures that use such devices.
Industry heartburn
The drastic price revision has rattled India’s stent market, especially multinational medical device manufacturers with expensive offerings.
The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), a Washington DC-based trade association of over 300 medical technology firms, including stent makers Abbott and Boston Scientific, said it was “deeply disappointed” by the NPPA order. In a statement, AdvaMed explained:
While the intent is to cap prices in patient interest, this pricing has the potential to block innovations and limit access to world-class medical care and options to deserving patients. The singular focus on controlling ceiling price of stents, without attempting to address the larger picture and correct inefficiencies in the healthcare ecosystem will not achieve its stated benefit, in the long run.
The decision also disregards the evolution of coronary stents over the last four decades, and blocking innovation may set our healthcare sector back by at least a decade, when there were far lesser options for Indian patients. There is a clear, measurable difference between different types of stents and their benefits. The government should have taken this categorization into consideration before regulating prices.
In the days immediately following the NPPA order, reports suggestedthat Abbott’s bioresorbable stents (which fully dissolves over time), previously priced at Rs1.6 lakh, were withdrawn from a number of Mumbai hospitals. In Kolkata, too, high-end stents suddenly went out of circulation.
The company, however, denied that anything of that sort happened. “Abbott continues to market our full range of coronary stents available in India, per the NPPA order of Feb. 13, 2017,” a spokesperson said. “We have also advised trade partners and hospital partners to abide by the ceiling prices determined by the NPPA order.”
Some part of the setback for multinational stent manufacturers is of their own making, though.
Girdhar J Gyani, director general of the Association of Healthcare Providers, which represents over 400 hospitals nationwide, explained that companies were unable to make a solid case for the use of more expensive, advanced stents, as opposed to older, cheaper variants.
“Unfortunately, our cardiologist friends were not able to produce the validated report which says that the fifth or fourth generation stents will give better outcomes,” said Gyani. “I wanted a very validated report but what I’ve been able to get are reports produced as marketing tools by the stent companies.”
Although the association supports the government’s move to cap some stents, Gyani argued that the NPPA order will make it difficult for patients to get top-of-the-line stents even if they want, and can afford, them. “Our final line is, please keep this option open for the patients who are affluent and who want fourth and fifth generation stents,” he said.
There’s also the fear that the pricing-cap on stents will drive away the lucrative wave of medical tourists who have been coming to Indian hospitals in growing numbers. “If we don’t give them the option, they may not want to come to us,” Gyani added. Well-heeled Indians, too, could fly overseas for treatment if the situation persists.
Indian stent-makers aren’t buying the argument. Their stents, they insist, are just as good as those of their foreign-made counterparts. “We can innovate much faster than them and we have more advanced features,” said Sabat. “With marketing and financial muscle, they try to show that they’re the most advanced.”
In any case, it’s not that multinational stent-makers can ignore India, said the managing director of another Indian firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Can any company neglect this population? No. We have 1.2 billion people,” he said. “Let’s see after a year how many patients really went out of India (for treatment).”
Sangwan, meanwhile, is raring for another fight, this time to bring down the prices of orthopaedic products, including those used in knee and hip replacement surgeries.
“I am also planning to do my PhD in law,” he said. “After all, I must fulfill my parents ambitions of me becoming a doctor.”
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance

The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.



Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.



The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.



The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)