Vertex Case Study

Improvements in health care and life sciences are an important source of gains in health and longevity globally. The development of innovative pharmaceutical products plays a critical role in ensuring these continued gains. To encourage the continued development of new drugs, economic incentives are essential. These incentives are principally provided through direct and indirect government funding, intellectual property laws, and other policies that favor innovation. Without such incentives, private corporations, which bring to market the vast majority of new drugs, would be less able to assume the risks and costs necessary to continue their research and development (R&D). In the United States, government action has focused on creating the environment that would best encourage further innovation and yield a constant flow of new and innovative medicines to the market. The goal has been to ensure that consumers would benefit both from technological breakthroughs and the competition that further innovation generates. The United States also relies on a strong generic pharmaceutical industry to create added competitive pressure to lower drug prices. Recent action by the Administration and Congress has accelerated the flow of generic medicines to the market for precisely that reason. By contrast, in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

U.S. based companies hold rights to most of the world’s rights on new medicines and holds thousands of new products currently being developed. As of 2012, the industry helps support almost 3.4 million jobs in the U.S. economy. It is also one of the most heavily R&D based industries in the world. In the United States, the environment for pharmaceuticals is much friendlier than other countries around the world in terms of pricing ability and regulations. Both the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology industries have experienced significant growth in the past year with year-over-year increases of 13.02% and 34.69% respectively. It is an even more striking when looking at the past five years considering both have beat out the S&P 500 with pharmaceuticals increasing an additional 31.44% and the biotechnology sector besting an astonishing 269.3% more return than the

The company is so large that no one drug can lift it from its current sales doldrums. In addition, the company was once highly attractive to investors, but its recent stock price fell to 1997 lows. This may put pressure on the company to attempt acquisitions at a time when the company is ill-equipped to integrate a new company into its organization, and it is engaged in a cost-cutting program at a time when it may need to invest even more in research and development (McTigue Pierce, 2005).

Extremely risky drug discovery and development, lengthening development times which increase development cost, return on investments, and generic competitors.

From a strategic viewpoint, it is my belief that Pills & Co should make a play to purchase Star Genomics for these reasons:

Usually, Apex sought to be the leading investor whatever the stage in order to have one of its representatives join the board of the financed companies. Furthermore, Apex pursues to balance its investments between start-up and

Recently, there has been a debate about the high prescription drug prices in the United States. Accounting for 9.7% of the national health expenditure, $329.2 billion was spent on prescription medications ($931 per person) in 2011 (Linton, 2014). So what exactly is the average American getting with their $931? Well, because there is an extraordinary amount of time, effort, and energy that goes into creating, manufacturing, and distributing a new drug, it’s no wonder the prices are so high. But what other costs are folded into the prices of your prescribed medications? This review looks beyond just the research and development costs needed to take a new drug from idea to shelf by examining several journals and other credible, secondary sources, to shed some light on how much pharmaceutical companies are spending to develop, advertise, and sell their drugs.

Cynthia Robbins-Roth is a strategic planner and business consultant to the biotechnology industry, named one of the Top 25 Biotech All-Stars by popular business magazine Forbes. Her book, published in year 2000, provides a broad overview of many biotech topics and draws upon her experience and skill as a keen businesswoman. The engaging and informative work initially details the establishment and growth of the biotechnology industry, as well as its historical origins and information on key players in its founding. Throughout her account of this “dynamic” industry’s early struggles, great successes, and current difficulties, Robbins-Roth presents her opinion of the industry’s current viability and hopes of the future product pipeline. Robbins-Roth predicts a revolutionary change in health management and treatment, which combined with the growing aged population, will produce sufficient demand to propel the biotechnology industry past the well-established small molecule pharmaceutical companies. She asserts that the biotechnology companies will emerge as the leaders in the world’s medical research and development. Robbins-Roth further explains the intricacies of financing a biotechnology venture, the necessity of efficient risk management, and the difficulty of selling an idea to non-scientist investors.

* He needed initial capital for investment, which he got from his long term friend Kaplan

Drug portfolio management is one of the most important determinants of long-term prosperity of research-oriented pharmaceutical companies.

GSK is the 2nd largest pharmaceutical firm in the world, and the largest in the UK by sales and profits, it is responsible for 7% of the worlds pharmaceutical market, and has its stocks listed both in UK and US (O 'Rourke, 2002). The origin of the so called blockbuster model, is partly linked with Glaxo (as it was previously known). In the early 80’s, then Glaxo brought to light their first blockbuster drug, Zantac, which was an anti-ulcer drug, which was very similar to the a pre existing drug Tagamet (first ever blockbuster) sold by Smith Kline & French, their completion at the time (MONTALBAN and SAKINÇ, 2011). The introduction of this drug, brought about an increasing sales force in the US, the company soon became dependent on the drug, because it represented a large part of their profit. In 2002, 8 blockbusters of GSK contributed to $14.240 million sales revenue, taking up 53% of its total ethical sales (Froud et al 2006). However, due to the nature of the pharmaceutical industry, the patent began to expire, in other to avoid the patent cliff, Glaxo merged with Wellcome in 1995, which ensured a growing number of sales force, and with Beecham in 2000 (Froud et al., 2006) this merger, boosted the confidence of investors, by growing the business inorganically. For Big Pharma, this block buster model is very profitable, because with the high cost of R&D, the drugs are able to generate ample profit, to cover the sunk costs

This report provides an analytical strategic review of the global pharmaceutical industry; its origin, evolution,

2. The only case of a company to meet its requirements and to fund R & D can have on various markets new drugs but can more often.

Although R&D has been retained by the large pharmaceutical firms, there has been a continuous decline in the R&D productivity. Controlling R&D is imperative to the success of a Pharmaceutical firm. However, as the pharmaceutical industry is maturing, there are diminishing returns to the R&D investment. Fewer and fewer blockbuster drugs are being discovered and therefore R&D is not the most value adding component in the value

1- The purpose of analyzing a pharmaceutical portfolio using(BCG, EG, and others), and describe the characteristics of a “Star” products and its role in portfolio.