Introduction to the Case First established in 1668 in Darmstadt, Germany, Merck is currently (in 1978) one of the largest prescription drug producers in the world. After coming off a 10 year drug drought in the late 1970s, Merck put a large amount of money into research to continue its dominance in the prescription drug industry. The research-first approach worked and since then Merck has increased sales significantly. Merck’s mission was well stated by founder George W. Merck. “We try never to forget that medicine is for the people…not for the profits” (Bollier 3).
Merck researchers have been investigating soil deposits from the Kitasato Institute in Japan looking for naturally occurring antibiotics. In this research they …show more content…
Cambell puts Merck in a difficult situation. First, Merck must choose a course of action that is ethically responsible and is consistent with its mission of making drugs to help people. Second, the option must address the reality that businesses must make a profit to stay open, so it should also offer some type of benefit for the company financially. One option for Merck is to proceed only with the drug Ivomec for animals and not to develop a drug for river blindness. There is simply not a large enough market that could afford any potential drug to help with river blindness. A significant amount of research has already been put into Ivomec and there is a high probability that Ivomec will be a financially successful product for the business. This option would maximize the business’ profits and minimize its risks. On the other hand, it is hard to justify such a course of action with the mission of the business. Millions of people would continue to suffer from river blindness. This option puts profits before the people and it could possibly result in a negative backlash from the media. If Merck were to pursue such a route, measures could still be taken to potentially help the victims of river blindness. Merck could release its research on ivermectin to other drug companies, allowing them the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
This discussion question is based on a case study. As in all case studies, review the facts of the case and consider the various steps of the nursing process in order to address the critical thinking questions.
Some financial considerations we must take into account are that the purchase price of $6.6 billion, Merck would be paying a premium to acquire Medco, which had reported revenues of $2.2 billion in 1992. The revenue generated is 22% increase from 1991. This shows that Medco has seen tremendous growth in both revenue and earnings since coming into the market in 1984. Thus Merck will gain the ability to increase more market share as well.
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
As consultant to Sanders and Myers, I would suggest they rethink the continuation of economic value added (“EVA”) bonus payout process. The proposed EVA bonus payout structure is supposed to be an objective way to gauge and reward employee performance; however, through no fault of their own, the Dermatology group is slated to undergo severe ebbs and flows in their incentive and could potentially wreak havoc on employee morale and retention.
Summary: In terms of total sales, Pfizer is the world’s largest pharmaceutical company that creates products that serve approximately 150 million people worldwide and sales of approximately $50 billion in 2009. Formed in 1849 as a chemicals business, it has realigned itself to become the world’s leading research based pharmaceutical company and has produced drugs such as penicillin, Lipitor, Viagra, Detrol, and Geodon and thousands of others throughout its history. Focused now on expanding its international offerings, it looks to China, India, and Russia as high potential markets. In addition to human pharmaceuticals, Pfizer has diversified into the animal pharmaceutical market that has augmented sales and profitability to
Another issue is too much power is given to scientists in decision-making of candidate drugs. Also there were inadequacies and lack of communication between marketing and research. Merck’s marketing and research needed to realize that the making of the drug is not only the most important part in increasing sales, but it also included a strong advertising campaign that will satisfy the needs of the customers.
Society expects drug companies to improve people’s well-being and to behave like a nonprofit company not overly concerned with making large profits. However, investors
Merck’s diverse product lines provide the company with a broad target customer base of doctors and any consumer in need of medication. Their
It wasn’t too long ago that the main security issue facing pharmaceutical companies was protecting their intellectual property from competitors who might be so unscrupulous as to try and steal information about new products. As computers became more entrenched in the pharmaceutical industry, for example, a clinical trial means having to store patient information, security became an issue as the pharmaceutical companies began storing patient data on their servers – they must comply with HIPAA, so patient privacy became an important cyber security issue. Always a priority, cyber security is at the top of the list for pharmaceutical organizations as threats from terrorist groups on pharmaceutical firms is real and increasing.
Merck Research Laboratories and Pharmaceutical firms in the world. Scientist Dr. Campbell and Dr. Mohammad Aziz, have made great progress in developing a cure that will make a difference in disease called River Blindness. River Blindness is a disease known for being life-threatening to those who contract the disease. Its symptoms include severe itching throughout the body, skin disfigurations, and total if not permanent blindness. As chairman of Merck, it is my decision on whether to allow Dr. Campbell and Dr. Mohammad Aziz and their research team to continue or discontinue their research to find a cure for River Blindness. I must answer several question before arriving at my final decision. Questions such as: should as a company invest more time and money into developing ivermectin into a drug that is safe for humans knowing it will likely never be profitable, or should I put a stop to any further research knowing that it could negatively impact profits? I will need to gather facts about the disease, define what ethical issues our company are responsible for, look all those affected by the disease, what consequences will we suffer as a company, what our obligations as a company are, what does this decision same about our integrity as a company and me personally, and what potential actions or plans will need to be put in place. In making my decision, I will apply the Eight Steps to Sound Ethical Decision Making process to arrive at my final decision. This process will
The barriers Merck faces in the attempt to pursue open innovation are the shift in Merck’s culture and mindset. Merck’s culture and organizational systems maintained this reason, which expected that later they hired the best people; the smartest people in the industry must work for Merck. Dr. Turner knew that innovations attempts often failed for large companies. Merck was optimistic because of his past successful experiences with several open-innovation ingenuity. Merck was already tapping into external
In summary of the Pfizer case study, the organization realized executives and key employees were spending 20-40% of their time on support work rather than knowledge work. In response, the company started a “magic button” process. When an employee would like to pass off the tasks that are monotonous or lack luster they can press the “magic button”. The tasks are assigned to individuals of an outside organization for completion. The result is an increase of employee productivity.
Bayer AG is fully committed to expanding its business operations through pharmaceuticals, consumer health, and crop science. Bayer AG understands that in order for the company to successfully expand its Pharmaceuticals department they must properly invest in research, development, and marketing of innovative medicinal products. In addition, Bayer AG is developing clinical programs, which will enable the company to provide various of its products to a greater number of people. Bayer AG ability to identify areas in medicine that remain untapped is crucial to the firm’s long term sustainability. For example, Bayer AG has identified the fields of cardiology, oncology, gynecology, and
In 2013, GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) Chinese operations were investigated for paying millions of dollars in bribes to Chinese medical professionals via a network of travel agents and other parties. The UK based pharmaceutical company was bribing these professionals in order to obtain monetary gains and build their presence in China. GSK had a seemingly in-depth compliance program and code of conduct for its employees, management, and third parties, but it fell short as bribery ran rampant. GSK was eventually found guilty by Chinese courts and instructed to pay a significant penalty, while five members also received prison sentences. The gift giving culture in China may be partly to blame for the common practice of bribery, but there are also other internal and external factors to consider. GSK as well as other companies and the Chinses government are using this case as a learning tool and making an effort to make necessary changes to prevent corruption in the future. This case provides an excellent example of the risks and challenges companies – not just pharmaceutical companies – may face when doing business in China.