Big Pharma Medical Case

As the brand manager for Allround cold medicine, there were many decisions regarding product formulation, strategy, line extensions and product launches over the company’s last 10 periods. The brand was focused on remaining a profitable, mature product family within the cold medicine category, but also maintaining a premium brand image.

Generally consumers have very little bargaining power as medication is prescribed. Apart from US where there is pricing flexibility, governments in other markets enjoy substantial pricing leverage.

Angiomax is considered as a potential substitute for heparin. It has 3 major advantages when compared with Heparin. First, the effects of Angiomax are more accurate and more predictable. Second, it works better among patients at risk for bleeding, where heparin often proves problematic. Third, the product works faster than heparin and patients do not need to wait for 2 – 3 hours to identify the results. The major disadvantage of Angiomax is its high production cost against Heparin. As Heparin has a very long history dated back in 1916, the price is only $2 per unit while the production cost of Angiomax takes nearly $40 per unit.

The case Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. was over if employee at will has a cause of action against her employers. Dr. Pierce refused to continue a project that she viewed it as medically unethical, however the employer continued with project and suggest for her to work on other project. In this case there are 3 key stakeholders Dr. Pierce, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. and Public (Halbert & Inguli, 2014).

They have also attacked patent listings in the Food and Drug Administration “Orange Book” and have alleged monopolization through fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office and sham litigation. Yet other cases have condemned distribution agreements as unlawful exclusive dealing. These government actions have led to substantial private class action litigation against the pharmaceutical industry. The FTC has also challenged numerous mergers and acquisitions in the industry over the last decade. One common feature in all of these cases is the need to define a relevant market. In nonmerger cases, the FTC and private plaintiffsgenerally allege narrow markets, limited to a single drug and its generic equivalent in some cases and to generic drugs excluding the bioequivalent “brand-name” drug in other cases. In its merger challenges, on the other hand, the FTC has alleged markets ranging from those based upon a particular chemical compound, to broader markets based upon various drugs’ manner of interaction or dosage form, to still broader markets of all drugs used to treat a disease or condition. In numerous pharmaceutical merger challenges, the government has included in the market not only currently marketed drugs but also other drugs under development, alleging “innovation markets.”

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

The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act (S. 2011) would amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for the negotiation of drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for those medications covered under Medicare Part D. The policy would be enacted at the federal level, and the policy tool used to do so would be federal funding. Under this bill, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) would be given the power to negotiate drug prices as well as establish and apply a specific formulary for Medicare-covered prescription drugs. Past rhetoric had implied that Donald Trump would have supported this bill; he condemned the role of pharmaceutical companies creating high drug prices as

In 2010, the Affordable Care Act created a $250 rebate if the Medicare beneficiary was in the coverage gap. It also expanded coverage to the discounts given on brand name prescriptions. With reforms and improvement comes disadvantage to others. Beneficiaries and patients will be able to start saving more money, but it comes with a decline for the drug providers. According to Health Capital Consultants, “over ten years, closing the coverage gap may ultimately cost approximately $32 billion” and the pharmaceutical industry will be forced to take on most of this burden. These companies are paying for the flexibility they’re been given by MMA. They can “set their premiums, design their own formularies and are free to use cost management tools” and Medicare will reimburse plans for a “share of their drug costs.” (Guterman & Huynh ,

Medicare, one of the greatest purchasing clients in the medication industry, is not lawfully allowed to bargain first hand with companies for lower medication costs or best possible price. (Kounang, 2015)

On september 2nd 2011, a Twenty-four year old man from cincinnati named Kyle Willis´ fell victim to the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry(Gann, Carrie). Willis had a severe toothache on his wisdom tooth that resulted in its extraction. After the surgery, Willis´s face started to swell and was sent to the emergency room. He was prescribed antibiotic medications and also painkillers in order to follow standard recovery procedure. Kyle Willis’ could not afford both drugs so he just purchased the pain killers because of the swellings unbearable pain. The infection continued to spread into his brain which lead to severe brain swelling and eventually Kyle Willis’ death. Kyle Willis’ died because he could not afford the medication that would have saved his life. There are many other people that can 't afford the drugs they need, which results them losing their lives. According to harvard studies, over 45,000 people annually die due to lack of health care coverage(Harvard Gazette). According to their studies, those who are privately insured have 40% chance less of dying than those who have insufficient funds(Harvard Gazette). The monopoly and corruption of the pharmaceutical industry is un-american and inhumane because it causes the middle class to not receive the help they need to recover.

Value: Angiomax is a blood-thinning drug, or anticoagulant, used in emergency coronary heart care. Angiomax is positioned as an alternative to heparin, the most commonly used anticoagulant in emergency coronary heart care, so to assess Angiomax value to a hospital is required to compare these two drugs.

The Pharmaceutical industry has been in the spotlight for decades due to the fact that they have a reputation for being unethical in its marketing strategies. In The Washington Post Shannon Brownlee (2008) states, “We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow.” This honorable statement is completely lost in today’s world of pharmaceutical marketing tactics. These tactics are often deceptive and biased. Big Pharma consistently forgets their moral purpose and focuses primarily on the almighty dollar. Big Pharma is working on restoring their reputation by reforming their ethical code of conduct.

Pharmed First Inc. is a widely successful chain pharmaceutical company with 85 drugstores located in Canada’s Atlantic provinces. George Brenner is one of the 6 regional managers and Angela MacFee is a store manager in a mall located in Dartmouth. One of MacFee’s loyal customers have purchased 9 packages of Diet Magic on September 2011 however wanted to return them on May 2012. Subsequently, MacFee reacted hastily and defensively, arguing with Johnston in spite of Pharmed First Inc. return policy (Figure 1). As a result, Johnston wrote a letter to Frank Chen, the president of Pharmed First Inc. and told Brenner to deal with it. He proposed that the company gives Johnston a $500 voucher and that MacFee apologizes. However, MacFee remained inflexible as she also challenged Brenner’s authority.

Therefore, protection of patents is one of the key conditions necessary for further development of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, non-efficient legislation that does not provide the necessary level of patent protection is one of the factors that hamper expansion of “Big Pharmaceutical” companies to the developing countries8.

The concept of product patent for pharmaceutical products is likely to make life saving medicine beyond the reach of the poor and deprived section of the society around the world.