Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Niches in the pharmaceutical sector
Key roles of marketing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Niches in the pharmaceutical sector
INTRODUCTION
Adopt the role of a marketing manager for multi-national pharmaceutical manufacturer Glaxo-Welcom. Your firm faces pressures to provide drugs for free. Assess the economic risks for the sales of your pharmaceutical goods in Colombia over the next five years and discuss how this pressure and these risks might affect the pricing of your products there.
Pharmaceutical companies spend vast amounts of dollars on research and development of new drugs for the public. Ultimately, specifically for U.S. drug manufacturers, the target market is the U.S. because of the possibility of high profit that is possible due to stringent U.S. patent requirements. In addition, there is no price regulation in the U.S. allowing for a premium sales market (Kanavos & Seeley, 2013). To profit from these benefits, companies must contend with Federal Drug Administration rules, requirements, and regulations, but if they pass them the market is open for virtually unlimited revenue if the drug does what it claims to.
Pharmaceutical companies are typically multinational operations located in specifically targeted countries around the world (Mahmud & Parkhurst, 2007). Many have grown to encompass the entire product life cycle to maximize profit in an efficient way. Ultimately, to ensure that transition to a successful product in the U.S. market, organizations have used the technique of giving the product away for a specific region and period of time in order to build brand recognition. In Mexico, Viagra was prescribed for virtually free for many years for this same reason, despite consumers paying top dollar for the drug in the U.S. The case of Glaxo-Welcom and their new drug in Columbia will be tested in the same manner. Additionally, givin...
... middle of paper ...
...as received so much attention that they have appeared on network television and ultimately pressured the company to offer them the drug. If this sort of case were to happen to Glaxo-Welcom in Columbia, and they didn’t go through with providing the drug for free, it could have some serious repercussions over the next five years for pricing, market entry and positive brand imaging.
CONCLUSION
Overall, Glaxo-Welcom should definitely provide the drug for free to Columbia. This will give them positive brand recognition for the region, and strengthen their name in the market over the long-term. Additionally, they will establish themselves with the drug when the inevitable move to stateside marketing occurs. Lastly, Glaxo-Welcom can set the drug’s price point to a higher index to recoup lost profits during the time the drug was offered for free to the emerging nation.
In summary, Burroughs Wellcome Company found itself under relentless pressure from government and activists to decrease the price of Retrovir. The firm had to decide whether to choose between increasing profit margin or changing the price for the ethical and social well-being of potential HIV and AIDS patients.
Lyles, Adam. “Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers.” Annual Review of Public Health, volume 23. 2002. Print.
In the recent years the drug industry underwent a significant transformation. Many of the big companies generate high revenues, which allow them to expand. Some of them expand on their own others through mergers and the buying of smaller companies.
As per WHO "The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30%. Six are based in the United States and four in Europe. Companies currently spend one-third of all sales revenue on marketing their products - roughly twice what they spend on research and development."
Suppose that you are a pharmaceutical benefit manager. First, briefly assess various pricing strategies that could be used to charge employers for prescription drugs.
...pecially with the use of DTC advertising, to such a wide range of afflictions greatly increased their consumer base, but one of them proved to be deadly. In 1999, four years after Lilly sent study results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showing Zyprexa didn’t alleviate dementia symptoms in older patients, it began marketing the drug to those very people, according to documents unsealed in insurer suits against the company for overpayment.(Applbaum, 248). Soon after it began to be used in those suffering from dementia, there were studies produces that showed an increase in death rate among elderly patients taking Zyprexa. In January of 2009, Eli Lilly and Company, who produced the drug, ended up settling the lawsuit and agreed to pay $1.415 billion which was one of the biggest corporate settlements in the history of pharmaceutical companies (Applbaum, 237).
Stan Frinkelstein and Peter Temin believes that one solution is to eliminate the link between drug prices and drug discovery. This will help ease the fear of losing research funding for new medicine and by doing so, drug prices should be a lot more reasonable. The next solution they have is to undo the blockbuster mentality and this is closely linked to eliminating the link between drug prices and drug discovery. Blockbuster refers to pharmaceutical companies that achieve an annual worldwide sale of $1 billion or more. They can achieve this because the drugs are used by many patients and/or used for a long period of time. This will solve the drug price crisis because by doing so, researchers can focus more on society’s needs instead of focusing on how to generate more revenue. Their solutions will help researchers develop drugs that society truly
Why do consumers purchase specific drugs for various ailments, sicknesses or diseases they might have? Why do physicians prescribe certain drugs over competitive drugs that may be available to the public? Why is it that most of us can easily name specific drugs that fit the many ailments of today’s society? On the surface the answer might be as simple as good TV advertising or radio commercials or even internet adds. The truth of matter is the major pharmaceutical manufacturers own the patents on these drugs and this gives them all of the marketing budget and muscle they need to promote the drug and control the pricing. The incentives for larger pharmaceutical companies are very enticing and as a result, they don’t mind spending the time in clinical trials and patent courts to get their drugs approved. Some will even get patents on the process by which the drug is manufactured, ensuring that no competitor can steal the drug or the process. This protects their large financial investment and nearly guarantees a large return for their investors. Many consumer rights groups claim this is nothing more than legalizing monopolies for the biggest manufacturers.
In America, it has become a battle to earn a high paying job to cope with the expenses of a typical American. It has become even more of a battle for some people to afford medical prescriptions to keep healthy. Health becomes a crucial issue when discussed among people. No matter what, at one point or another, everyone is going to stand as a victim of the pharmaceutical industry. The bottom line is Americans are paying excessive amounts of money for medical prescriptions. Health-Care spending in the U.S. rose a stunning 9.3% in 2002, which is the greatest increase for the past eleven years. (Steele 46) Many pharmaceutical companies are robbing their clients by charging extreme rates for their products.
Moreover, some of the new drugs being introduced at such large prices have only slight marginal improvements over the already pre-existing drugs. One example of this would be Zaltrap, a drug approved to treat colorectal cancer. Zaltrap was discovered by Regeneron, an emerging biopharmaceutical company, but sold by the French drug maker Sanofi. Yet it worked no better in clinical trials than Roche’s cancer drug called Avastin, which on average adds only 1.4 months to life expectancy for patients inflicted with advanced colorectal cancer. Sanofi priced Zaltrap at $11,000 a month, which is twice Avastin’s price. At any rate, there was resistance. Doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York, which is one of the world’s leading cancer centers,
Apart from New Zealand, the United States is the only other country in the world where it is lawful to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer (“AMA Calls for...”). Consequently, the United States is undergoing serious gratuitous issues from allowing pharmaceutical propaganda to plague our television commercials, magazine publications, and radio advertisements. Although prescription drug advertising can inform viewers about certain diseases and illnesses, the direct to consumer propaganda mostly benefits the drug companies, and it can lead to serious problems such as self diagnosing, unsafe medications, and over-medicationing.
With the low success rated private firms invest millions into several produces. When a drug does make it too market and is successful companies need to make-up money spent in development as well as the cost of drugs which did not make it to market. After all investments are taken care of there is still the need for profit. Some are concerned if the United States government implements control over prescription drug cost then private firms will be less motivated to invest in pharmaceuticals development of our fear they would not make their investment back. This would supply pharmaceutical companies with less finances for the research and development process. According to the information collected by Abbott and Vernon a drop in the price of pharmaceuticals would result in significant loss in investment of research and development (Abbott and Vernon). If drug cost were to drop 40-45% the amount of a drug to move from animal testing to human clinics would decrease by 50-60% (Abbott and Vernon). With such high risk and low reward pharmaceutical companies will likely stop or slow research on new technologies and compounds. In 1969 Canada imposed regulations on drug prices (Weidenbaum). After the regulations were imposed there was a decline in new drugs being created (Weidenbaum). This change in the pharmaceutical
Prices continue to increase with no end in sight. Although there are a number of reasons for this trend direct to consumer drug advertising is partially to blame. The American Medical Association has spoken out against drug advertising. Stating that the ads are driving up drug costs by convincing the consumer that the brand name drug is the one they need the most. Doctors feel pressured by patient into prescribing brand name drugs instead of their cheaper counterparts. Brand name drugs cost more than generic drugs. On average brand name drugs cost 80% more than their generic counterparts. Yet patients will often come in and request the band name drug. Insisting that the drug they saw on television is the one they need. Most doctors will give in to the patient’s requests. Patients are needlessly increasing their own medical costs because they incorrectly believe that the drug they saw on TV is safer and more effective. This is not the case. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require all generic drugs to prove they are identical to their brand name counterparts, even going as far as to have both generic and brand name drugs have the same active ingredients, strength, dosage form, and route of administration. Generic drugs are just as safe and effective as brand name drugs and cost considerably less. Yet patients continue to request overpriced brand name
According to Pires de Carvalho, a local working requirement, is against Article XX(j) of the GATT and the lack of sufficient domestic supply can be satisfied by importation. Nevertheless, Pires de Carvalho ignores the very important facts that transnational pharmaceutical companies may disregard small markets and pharmaceutical products are highly regulated by national health agencies. Sometimes deficient supply would possibly happen in certain areas as drugs are not as free as other goods and services flowing in the global market.
In the business of drug production over the years, there have been astronomical gains in the technology of pharmaceutical drugs. More and more drugs are being made for diseases and viruses each day, and there are many more drugs still undergoing research and testing. These "miracle" drugs are expensive, however, and many Americans cannot afford these prices.