Case Analysis : Allergan 's ( Agn )

In period five, we introduced the line extension Allright; a 12-Hr muli-symptom relief capsule. We decided this extension would be successful, as the allergy market is very small and had an entrenched competitor. Therefore, while we were aware of potential cannibalization, we believed that the targeted market (retirees, empty nesters, and young singles) would have sufficient demand for our product. We also reasoned that this target was far enough removed from Allround’s to gain additional market share without taking any from Allround. However, this was not the case, as cannibalization was a pressing issue. Market share was gained at the expense of Allround.

Allstar’s Pharmaceutical division has a multi-symptom cold OTC medication (Allround) that is competing against nine brands from four competitors. The intent of this exercise is to evaluate Allround’s current position in the market, by analyzing its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. There is also a proposed 10 year goal plan and strategy to establish Allstar as the industry leader of the OTC cold remedy market, while maintaining long term sustaining profitability.

Those target markets who rely on Johnson & Johnson health and medical needs are mostly patients, doctors, nurses and civilians. Therefore, the company need to sustain their products and services over all these years to ensure that lower income people and underprivileged patients are able to access on their medicines. This however requires the company to balance patient’s access and competitive dynamics in line with their need as the company need to have enough resources to keep on being innovating, creating new and better medicines and at the same time making sure there will be a fair return to the shareholder as well. Johnson & Johnson also work closely with the governments, physicians, non-government organizations and the international donors all around the world to provide its products within an affordable prices to its

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 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).

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

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.

Cancer is figured to be the second leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. With approximately 14 million new cases and 8.2 million cancer related deaths in 2012, alone .Why are so many people stuck suffering with this deadly disease? Millions of dollars have been invested into cancer research, yet there is no cure. Are these pharmaceutical companies focus on finding a cure for cancer or concentrating on elongated treatments in order to lengthen their pockets? We must first understand that cancer is big business earning huge profits. Nonetheless, the cancer industry is spending virtually zilch of its multi-billion dollar resources on effective prevention strategies, like dietary guidelines, exercise, natural remedies and herbs proven to cure cancer. Instead, it pours its money into treating cancer, not preventing or allaying it.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSilicon Valley Medical Technologies (SIVMED) was founded as a research and development firm. In the beginning, SIVMED performed its own basic research, obtained patents on promising technologies, and then either sold or licensed the technologies to other firms which marketed the products. The firm has since then grown and is now contracted to perform research and testing for larger genetic engineering firms, biotechnology firms, the US government, and is now widely recognized as the leader in an emerging growth industry. SIVMED's founders were relatively wealthy individuals when they started company, and they committed a great deal of their own funds to the venture. Their personal funds, however, were soon exhausted by the

This case study focuses Burroughs Wellcome and their drug Retrovir. Retrovir is a drug that treats AIDS and AID-related complications. In 1987, Burroughs Wellcome obtained approval from the FDA to market azidothymidine (AZT), also known as Retrovir, as a treatment for AIDS. Retrovir was the only kind of drug on the market. Because of this, many critics accused Burroughs Wellcome of price-gouging, as the price of Retrovir was $188 for a hundred 100mg capsules sold to wholesalers. The president of Burroughs Wellcome, T.E Haigler, defended the high price, stating it was due to uncertainty in the market, the possibility of new drug therapies, and profit margins created by new drugs. Even though Retrovir’s price was dropped 20 percent in December 1987, and 20 percent more in September 1989, due to the House of Representatives launching an investigation, there was still pressure to lower the price. The big question faced in this case is what is Burroughs Wellcome’s next move regarding pricing?

The strategic implications for Vertex attempting to fund and develop four drugs are as following:

What long-term business model will attract venture capital? Should the company accept short-term partial sponsorship from a large drug manufacturer in exchange for a modest royalty on the drug in the future--or risk going it alone and possibly running out of funds? It is on such decisions that a company's success is made--and lives of cancer patients may depend.

It is an honor for me to lead Pfizer at this important time for both our company and the industry. I’ve spent my entire career at Pfizer and during this time I have seen the industry change and evolve in terms of customers’ needs, regulatory standards and where growth occurs. Among these changes, one of the most important has been the increasing pressure from payers, governments and society to deliver greater value. That’s why I believe there is a fundamental question facing the industry and Pfizer. Simply stated, it is: Do we have a research model that will consistently produce results that improve the lives of patients

Introduction AstraZeneca PLC (AstraZeneca, AZN:NYSE, AZN:LSE) is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It was formed in 1999 from the merger of Sweden’s Astra AB and UK’s Zeneca Group plc. Core Activities AstraZeneca is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of prescription pharmaceuticals and biological products for important areas of healthcare: Cardiovascular, Gastrointestinal, Infection, Neuroscience, Oncology, and Respiratory and Inflammation. One of the key benefits of the merger between Astra and Zeneca is seen as their portfolio of new products in development: AstraZeneca call this their 'product pipeline'.

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