Strategic Pricing Proposal to Counter Generic Sildenafil

The rise in drug prices is causing the public to ask why this is so and why there isn’t anything being done, or what the reason could be for sky high prices. Some of the reasons include pharmaceutical companies setting their drug prices

Pharmaceutical companies are provided with temporary monopoly rights on the production of new drugs which result in a higher cost on consumers. If competing companies were allowed to produce generic forms of those drugs, consumers will be able to afford those medications even in cases where those consumers have no insurance coverage. The company responsible for developing and inventing the original medication could be offered incentives to invent in the future by either obtaining tax breaks or NIH funding for future research. They could even be offered a percentage of the sales of the generic drugs. Economist Gary S. Becker advocates dropping many FDA requirements that, in his opinion, provide no additional safety measures but rather delay the development of new drugs.[12] Betamethasone, for example, has been part of the standard prenatal care in Europe since the late 1970’s while it got adopted in the U.S. after 1997. On many occasions, the FDA ignores all scientific evidence concerning certain drugs because the manufacturer did not follow their mandated bureaucratic standards.

The current debate over the Mylan Company’s near monopoly of the epinephrine market through its EpiPen shows what can happen without monopoly regulation. While the cost to produce an Epipen is around $30, the price to the consumer is around $300 each. The economic implications for a family that needs to keep the device on hand to save a life can be excessively high, the emotional results of not having one when you need one are debilitating. This monopoly is further enhanced by state-enforced regulations requiring that schools keep EpiPens in stock and the, so-called, EpiPen law enacted in 2013, which leave little incentive for other pharmaceutical companies to develop their own technology for fast-acting emergency devices. (Bartolone, 2016) Breaking Mylan’s monopoly will not only lead to new product development but lower prices for consumers for a life-saving delivery

One primary goal of Pfizer is to deliver sustained, excellent product by outperforming Pfizer’s competitors and must differentiate itself adequately from its competitors. Competitive advantage is central to strategic management in that it will produce and sustain superior performance. To be competitive in a business environment, often it requires the company to have a product or service different and better than other organizations competing in the same marketplace. According to Wadman (2007) “Pfizer and the rest of the pharmaceutical industry need to develop more sophisticated drugs, targeted at a smaller number of people more quickly, efficiently and at a lower cost” (p. 1). Once Pfizer’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are assessed and analyzed, managers must decide a set of strategies to reduce or eliminate its weaknesses and capitalize on its strengths and maximize opportunities. An example is Porter’s three generic strategy approaches of differentiation, cost leadership, and focus strategy by using differentiation strategies to differentiate Pfizer from its competitors. Strategies are essential; however, it is useless unless they are effectively implemented levels of the company. Business-level strategies are typically developed and implemented by heads of business units and are first approved by top management. The functional level strategy is the last level that focuses on developing strategies for managing the various departments to

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).

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

Pharmaceuticals in the United States have been on the rise for years and everyone is trying to find was to get cheaper medication. New generics, 4 dollar lists, and coupons have been a growing force in pharmacies in the past few years. Some might think, “There has to be laws against rising prices, right?” Well, sort of.

Anyone who has purchased prescription medications has probably wondered why they cost so much, and rightfully so. Medication prices in the United States have been on a steady increase for decades, however, prices have been drastically increasing as of recent. Pharmaceutical companies have tried to justify these price increases due to the demand, the high cost of research, and the high costs of development and approval. Notwithstanding, the extent to which the prices have increased is not justifiable. Americans should be against these high medication prices and take action because pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of our health care system in order to capitalize from the sick. In order shed some light on this issue, we must examine the magnitude, scope, and consequences of these rises in price.

Recently, there had been a controversy over the rise in pharmaceutical costs involving the EpiPen in the United States. The EpiPen, also known as adrenaline/epinephrine, is a widely used injection that is used to treat allergic reactions. This generic drug has been available for many years. The EpiPen controversy is a prime example of how monopoly

The elimination of Zocar from the market will erase the $5.2 billion sales annually. Fosomax, an osteoporosis relieving drug, produced by Merck will soon lose the$ 2.2 billion annual sales because of the expiration of its patent. Also, another problem is the struggles recently to find new medicines.

Consumers do not always evaluate prices objectively. Often a referenced price is a known and available price, like that of a competitor. Pricing Datril at par with Tylenol and advertising it as a new substitute with same features may have been a fraught tactic in a short-run test environment. Market penetration and share take time and is unknown. Additionally, a price war could have ensued with Tylenol due to cost differences especially in advertising.

Goals 2-5 were revised based upon the market updates and information accumulated on the over-the-counter cold medicine market. Most notably, the initial proposed objective of obtaining 50%

While Levitra was thought to target a niche group of men with diabetes related illness, for which it was safer than Viagra, it did not materialize to creating its own segmented market.

Opportunities-- Cialis has a very large target market that they could choose from can focus on the dropouts or the customers who were not completely satisfied with Viagra

They could have chosen a compete strategy which would have the pharmaceutical product go head to head up against their main competitor Pfizer’s Viagra. Finally, they could have chosen a beat strategy, where the option is to come up with a different positioning in order to reach a broader market.