backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 140 comment(s) - last by Sleeperman.. on Dec 15 at 7:44 AM

Record number of patent expiration's could slash pharmaceutical industry profits in half

Traditionally, one of the largest and most profitable industries in America has been pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical companies are interesting in that they make products that no one wants, but hundreds of thousands of people must have to survive.

The pharmaceutical industry as we know it is due for some big changes. Last month, DailyTech reported that former Intel CEO Andrew S. Grove ripped the pharmaceutical industry for its underperforming research operations. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that high profile medications coming off patent between now and 2012 will result in a loss of about $67 billion USD in income for top U.S. pharmaceutical companies. That amount is about half what the pharmaceutical industry made in combined sales during 2007.

Few will feel sorry for the declining sales of these pharmaceutical giants since many Americans are literally forced to decide between food and their life saving medications each month. Medications moving from patented status to non-patented status allow much lower cost generic medications to come to market.

The Wall Street Journal says that 2010 could be the worst year for Pfizer when it loses its patent for the drug Lipitor -- the most successful medication ever. Drugs are given a patent of 20 years where no other manufacturer can legally make a generic version of the medication. The catch is that it can take large amounts of that 20-year period to get the drug to market. However, drug companies can reap profits on patented medications in the 90% to 95% range.

Three high profile medications from Merck & Co have patents expiring in 2012 including Fosamax, Singulair and Cozaar. Those three drugs combine to provide 44% of Merck’s revenue. To continue operating many of the pharmaceutical companies, like Merck, are diversifying and buying biotech companies, which are seen as the next big area of breakthrough for medications and disease treatments. The reason biotech firms are popular purchases for pharmaceutical giants is that there is currently no U.S. regulatory pathway for generic biotech drugs, effectively allowing biotech drug inventors to sell a brand only product indefinitely until new legislation is mandated.

Many pharmaceutical companies are cutting staff to maintain profits with companies like Eli Lilly & Co announcing it will cut 10% of its workforce and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. announcing it will cut about 4300 jobs and close 27 manufacturing facilities. Some drug makers are also looking to outsource the manufacture of their medications overseas where the costs are much lower. Such costs saving measures are unlikely to mean lower drug prices for U.S. consumers where the brunt of the cost of development of a medication is made back by drug makers.

The U.S. is one of the few developed nations that doesn’t mandate medication prices. This is the reason so many U.S. consumers flock to Canadian pharmacies where they can get the same medications they would purchase in the U.S. at a fraction of the cost. Drug companies have spent millions lobbying congress to prevent the importation of drugs from Canada, not because of safety concerns but because of profit loss. Canada’s government negotiates the price for medications sold nationally making them significantly cheaper than buying the same medications here.

The fear for many is that the dropping profit margins will result in less research and development funding, leading to less new drugs being developed. This is not only a concern for disease conditions that have few or no treatments, but a concern for more common conditions requiring antibiotics. Antibiotics that worked well in the past are beginning to lose effectiveness as bacteria and viruses mutate into forms that are resistant to current antibiotics.

The FDA says it hasn’t changed the way it approves drugs to make requirements stricter, that drug companies simply don’t submit as many drugs for approval.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

good
By Homerboy on 12/6/2007 2:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
they've made enough profit for the past X years.




RE: good
By Cobra Commander on 12/6/2007 2:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
yeah... pretty confident they'll figure out a new way to screw us just as hard


RE: good
By PWNettle on 12/6/2007 5:54:55 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, they'll just come out with a slightly new and improved version with a new patent, and their pushers (er, the doctors) will help them keep the easy money flowing.


RE: good
By FITCamaro on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: good
By Evangels on 12/6/2007 2:36:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The fact is that drug research is extremely expensive. Not only do you spend years just paying scientists just to develop the drugs, you have to spend millions if not tens or hundreds of millions to get the drug approved for sale.


The research was also put into "wrong" direction. They are trying to invent the Drug that will make you feel better but won't cure you at all. That way you will have to keep buying them. If you know anyone works for those Companies Above.... you know what I mean.


RE: good
By steven975 on 12/6/2007 2:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
True, but only to a point.

Many things can't be cured by a pill. I've got vital organs that are destroyed and am only here due to the medications that have been developed in recent years.

IMO, the US drug companies need to grow a backbone and charge the other countries more appropriate prices. That could save US consumers a lot of money.


RE: good
By Lonyo on 12/6/2007 4:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
Other countries like where?
China will make knock=offs, countries with socialised healthcare just won't buy the drugs.
You can't just increase prices, because your product will just not get sold. There are many drugs with are not available in the UK because they are too expensive for the NHS to buy, so they go without.
Sure, individuals could purchase those same drugs at a vastly inflated cost, but the number of people who would be able to do that is quite small.
There have been many instances of very effective drugs which haven't been made available because they are already too expensive.


RE: good
By Samus on 12/7/2007 12:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
Such as drugs that treat Cervical Cancer and HIV...


RE: good
By Pneumothorax on 12/7/2007 9:23:35 AM , Rating: 1
Have you heard of Gardisil? It's basically a cure for cervical cancer, but as a doc practicing in the "Bible Belt" I've met stiff resistance from parents who feel that a vaccine against cervical cancer is going to make their daughters promiscuous. Kinda sounds like the Taliban if you ask me lol.


RE: good
By TomZ on 12/7/2007 9:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
Some of these people are probably even warped enough to see cervical cancer as "God's punishment" for being promiscious.


RE: good
By AsicsNow on 12/7/2007 2:33:04 PM , Rating: 3
Its actually not a cervical cancer drug at all. It is a genital warts vaccine. However, genital warts in females do often lead to cervical cancer because they can occur inside in the vagina where they are hard to detect, and even harder to treat with topical treatments available to males.

It won't cure cervical cancer at all, or really help if you already have genital warts, but it is a great preventative.

I totally agree that people need to be more open minded about the treatment, but I don't think its quite as big of a problem with doctors allowing the treatment in the bible belt as you state. The biggest problem is simply awareness of what the drug actually does, and getting young people to know about it.


RE: good
By Pneumothorax on 12/7/2007 4:25:06 PM , Rating: 1
What I meant is I am a doc practicing in upper state Georgia... I didn't mean to sound like a cure, but it's an awesome prevention. I try to offer it to all females 9-26, but I meet stiff resistance from many parents even after I blow 5 minutes trying to explain it for the 12 minutes I'm alloted by the insurance co's for the visit. It works MUCH better if given before "first contact" if you know what I mean.


RE: good
By Ringold on 12/6/2007 4:43:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
IMO, the US drug companies need to grow a backbone and charge the other countries more appropriate prices. That could save US consumers a lot of money.


I'm afraid that'd go one of two ways..

A) Socialist countries submit and allow the free market to operate

B) Socialist countries get pissed off, seize all pharma companies assets within their realm, flaunt international law and just start making it all themselves, nearly eradicating the industry.

There's more precedent, I think, for the latter than the former..


RE: good
By TomZ on 12/7/2007 12:48:46 PM , Rating: 3
Downrated...why? Seems like an insightful comment to me.


RE: good
By rcc on 12/7/2007 2:13:34 PM , Rating: 3
Because it didn't start with "Corporations are evil" take their money!


RE: good
By omnicronx on 12/6/2007 5:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IMO, the US drug companies need to grow a backbone and charge the other countries more appropriate prices. That could save US consumers a lot of money.
Typical American... If everyone else is doing something else, you must be right! Just look at the Metric system! Like cmon counting in multiples of 10? What kind of idiot thought of that!!!

I am also sure that drug companies would share their newly found profits with all americans, because they are all honestly run community driven companies right?

American drug companies are the problem , nough said


RE: good
By clovell on 12/6/2007 5:22:49 PM , Rating: 4
> I am also sure that drug companies would share their newly found profits with all americans, because they are all honestly run community driven companies right?

Believe it or not, some are.

> American drug companies are the problem , nough said

That's a rather baseless generalization.


RE: good
By omnicronx on 12/6/2007 8:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a rather baseless generalization.

Did you read the article? Is it any wonder how profits for said drug company is going to fall 44% (billion of dollars) because of one drug? That means that generic drug companies can make the same product for a fraction of the cost.

Once again, I work for a drug company, what do you do?
What are you basing you comments upon?


RE: good