This supplement to Change at Pfizer: Jeff Kindler (A) deals with Pfizer’s 2009 acquisition of Wyeth — the first mega-acquisition since the world economic crisis.
In February 2009, Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), reflected on his vision for big pharma as a catalyst for change which focussed on two key issues: 1) promoting innovation for the products that treat or prevent neglected tropical diseases and 2) improving access to medicines in the world’s poorest countries. He had announced the creation of the Pharmaceutical Patent Pool and wondered if it was the right strategy to deliver results on these two key issues.
In January 2010, Andrew Witty realized that the Pharmaceutical Patent Pool in and of itself was insufficient to generate action on neglected tropical diseases. He announced, therefore the "Open Labs, Open Minds" strategy. Was this enough to encourage action for neglected diseases affecting the world's poorest? How would GSK's shareholders react?
In February 2009, Andrew Witty reflected on his vision for big pharma as a catalyst for change which focused on two key issues: 1) promoting innovation for the products that treat or prevent neglected tropical diseases and 2) improving access to medicines in the world's poorest countries. He had announced the creation of the "Pharmaceutical Patent Pool" and wondered if it was the right strategy to deliver on the two key issues.
In January 2009, Pfizer announced its acquisition of Wyeth in a cash and stock deal valued at $68 billion. This deal represented the first mega-acquisition since the world economic crisis, which began in September 2008. Jeff Kindler knew that the last acquisition (Pharmacia in 2003) had not gone as planned. Was Pfizer prepared for the Wyeth acquisition? Would it solve some of Pfizer's pressing problems or create new ones?
The integration of Wyeth began soon after the acquisition was announced in April 2009. Linked to the integration were a series of organizational structural changes. Jeff Kindler wondered whether the acquisition and all the organizational changes linked to it would be enough to generate real long-term success.
Pfizer Inc., the largest research-based drug company in the world, was faced with multiple challenges, including fierce court battles with generic drug companies over the patents of Lipitor, reduced productivity from research and development, and a changing external health care environment globally, with growing importance of emerging markets. These challenges were set within a business environment characterized by multi-level change and uncertainty.<br><br>The case dwells on the newly appointed chief executive officer’s strategy in transforming a giant pharmaceutical organization by changing its business model, strategy, and structure to foster organic growth and explore external opportunities. Did Pfizer need more change or was it merely a matter of time before the new strategy generated results?
Pfizer Inc., the largest research based drug company in the world, is faced with multiple challenges. The key challenges include fierce court battles with generic companies over the patents of Lipitor, reduced productivity from research and development, and a changing external healthcare environment globally with growing importance of emerging markets. These challenges are set within a business environment itself characterized by multi-level change and uncertainty. The case dwells on the newly appointed chief executive officer's strategy in transforming a giant pharmaceutical organization by changing the business model, the strategy and structure to foster organic growth, as well as to explore external opportunities. Does Pfizer need more change or is it merely a matter of time before the new strategy generates results?
In recent years, many countries with publicly funded healthcare have started using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) along with review of clinical data as a tool to assess the overall benefit of a new drug to the society and set priorities with regards to health care budget. Cost effectiveness was formally incorporated into the Ontario drug review system in 1993 and the Canadian drug-review system in 2003. The issue of using cost effectiveness has become increasingly contentious in recent years: some newly approved cancer drugs cost $3,000 to $6,000 or more for one treatment cycle, but their high prices means that they were often classified as being not cost effective. This note reviews many of the competing interests in debates over drug funding and dilemmas about healthcare financing decisions in the presence of limited budgets.
In recent years, many countries with publicly funded healthcare have started using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) along with review of clinical data as a tool to assess the overall benefit of a new drug to the society and set priorities with regards to health care budget. Cost effectiveness was formally incorporated into the Ontario drug review system in 1993 and the Canadian drug-review system in 2003. The issue of using cost effectiveness has become increasingly contentious in recent years: some newly approved cancer drugs cost $3,000 to $6,000 or more for one treatment cycle, but their high prices means that they were often classified as being not cost effective. This note reviews many of the competing interests in debates over drug funding and dilemmas about healthcare financing decisions in the presence of limited budgets.