Medco

Emergency Room Care ($302 per visit and 4 visits per year (each quarter) for 20 years) = $24,160

Founded in 1946, Seattle’s Group Health Cooperative was created by doctors and community members who believed that there needed to be a health care program that was affordable, member centered, and held principles of social justice. This cooperative was one that had been successful for many years, but just recently was acquired by the not for profit Kaiser Permanente health-care company on February 1, 2017 for 1.8 billion dollars. Although Group Health is a cooperative and Kaiser Permanente is a nonprofit healthcare company, they have similar views on how they run their companies because both have missions to put their members and employees first. This is something that the articles stressed because this merge is going to affect thousands of members and employees. I plan on focusing on the process Kaiser Permanente had when wanting to take over Group Health Cooperative, the pros and cons of the final decision to merge the two healthcare programs, and ultimately how Group Health’s marketing and management strategies will be implemented in the merge. (12)

Low pricing eventually results in loss of customer loyalty as pricing to bottom is a risky business strategy.

From a strategic perspective, in order to address its organizational needs, EMC stands a better chance if anchored to a larger, more financially and structurally sound medical entity through the option of a merger. Benefits would include gaining increased bargaining power, the improved ability to retain its best and brightest, a “longer reach” in attracting quality personnel from all around the state or the country at large and a better position from which to compete for customers.

Pfizer is the largest American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It competes with Merck and Glaxo, and markets such well-known medications as Celebrex and Viagra. However, the pharmaceutical industry as a whole has undergone changes in recent years with significant consolidation taking place and with increased scrutiny regarding the ways in which drugs are developed, tested and marketed. In addition, recent controversies have erupted regarding Merck's drug Vioxx, and Pfizer has been the target of unwanted publicity regarding its painkiller Celebrex. This research considers the strategic position of Pfizer, including its strengths and weaknesses as well

If either Sepsis or Diabetes deal come through, the firm will be at an excellent position, with an assured firm value of $25 million and a complete control of the company for the owners. In terms of choosing between the two deals, the Sepsis deal is more fruitful as we receive $5 million up-front and $108 million milestone payments after the drug passes the phase 2 test in the Sepsis. In contrast, the Diabetes deal fetches $8 million up-front and $80 million milestone payment which is too less. In addition, the potential sales for Sepsis are $0.5 billion annually compared to $4 billion for diabetes. It is not a smart decision if we give up large portion of future proceeds from selling Diabetes drugs. Purinex only needs small cash to cover its general operating and R&D research costs; $5 million up-front payment from sepsis partner is enough for next 83 months.

Case Analysis - "Merck-Medco" Maureen Hergert MGT 362 - SPRING 2004 Professor Steven Francis Case Analysis - "MerckMedco" March 7, 2004 Introduction. Merck & Company (Merck) was a pharmaceutical researcher and manufacturer while Medco Cost Containment Services, Inc. (Medco) was a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). On November 18, 1993, Merck purchased Medco for $6.6 billion. Immediately after the merger, Medco operated as a subsidiary of Merck. In 1994, MerckMedco was formed. 2 Grant states that corporate strategy involves decisions that define the scope of the firm. In addition, he states the importance of vertical integration as it has caused companies to redesign their value chains within their organizational boundaries. 1 The acquisition

A merger is a partial or total combination of two separate business firms and forming of a new one. There are predominantly two kinds of mergers: partial and complete. Partial merger usually involves the combination of joint ventures and inter-corporate stock purchases. Complete mergers are results in blending of identities and the creation of a single succeeding firm. (Hicks, 2012, p 491). Mergers in the healthcare sector, particularly horizontal hospital mergers wherein two or more hospitals merge into a single corporation, are increasing both in frequency and importance. (Gaughan, 2002). This paper is an attempt to study the impact of the merger of two competing healthcare organization and will also attempt to propose appropriate

According to Rusli, the merger would create more in-store traffic for CVS and increase both companies’ consumer base. This merger gave CVS the opportunity to expand both its own small pharmacy benefits manager business and mail order business. CVS’s opportunity to take advantage of Caremark’s pharmacy benefits manager business allowed it to take advantage of the mail order business as well that had begun cutting into drug stores’ revenue (Rusli, 2013). By providing its customers with a unique set of services and gaining the market power to control costs, CVS Caremark gained a competitive advantage. Unless competitors like Walgreens and Rite Aid find a way to respond to CVS Caremark’s strategy, it will be difficult to remain competitive with this firm for long. Overall, the merger was a great strategic move on behalf of both organizations, which helped ensure the current success of CVS Caremark.

CVS, Wal-Mart, Medco Health and Rite Aid are Walgreens’ major competitors. Wal-Mart aggressively competes by its use of the $4 generic prescriptions promotion. CVS employs a similar strategy by offering a 90-day supply of generic medications for $9.99. Medco Health also competes with CVS by offering a 90-day supply of medications for a cheaper price than a customer would pay in-store. As of 2008, Walgreens and its major competitors were measured as follows10:

While some have identified Merck as a visionary company dedicated to a "core values and a sense of purpose beyond just making money" (Collins & Porras, 2002, p. 48), others point out corporate misdeeds perpetrated by Merck (e.g., its role in establishing a dubious medical journal that republished articles favorable to Merck products) as contradictory

Merck has initiated towards combining functional departments with a core cross-functional structure that focused on strategies and implementation. For instance, Ray Gilmartin established the Worldwide Business Strategy Teams (WBST) in 1995. The WBST, which consisted of 12 or 15 members from the US Human Health, marketing and MRL’s internal group, focused on managing, improving efforts and coordinating therapeutic franchises worldwide. Cross-functional groups can promote resources for category drugs, decide if marketable drug be evaluated in Phase V studies, look at possible impact sales and push for initiatives. If cross-functional groups are designed and perform correctly, then they will be

The costs of capital and capital structures for Pfizer Inc. and its two competitors Merck & Co. Inc. and Johnson & Johnson in the pharmaceutical industry are analyzed in this memo.

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