Pharmaceuticals and Europe 1992: The Dynamics of Industrial Change

1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Howells
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Vertical Integration ◽  
Central Element ◽  
Industrial Change ◽  
Drug Companies ◽  
Sales And Marketing ◽  
Survival And Growth ◽  
Information Assets ◽  
Financial Power ◽  
Major Drug

This paper provides an analysis of the implications of 1992 on the European pharmaceutical industry and sets it within the wider restructuring of the industry. The creation of a single European pharmaceutical market will, however, be gradual and will often present conflicting tendencies. The response of the major drug companies to the period of rapid technological change associated with the development of biotechnology is assessed. Their financial power together with their control of key knowledge and information assets, in the form of R&D and sales and marketing networks, has been a central element in their survival and growth. It has been presented that the power of large firms in terms of control and vertical integration has shifted away from production to nonproduction assets.

AIDS Drugs & the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Need For Reform

1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-410
Author(s):  
Mary T. Griffin
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
Hiv And Aids ◽  
Price Regulation ◽  
Drug Industry ◽  
Drug Companies ◽  
Aids Drugs

AbstractThe pharmaceutical industry has long enjoyed substantial profits despite increased requirements for drug approval and various attempts to regulate the industry. Drug companies have avoided effective regulation by blaming high prices on the costs of research and development. The search for drugs effective in combatting HIV and AIDS related illnesses has provided a stark background on which to view the actions and justifications of drug companies. Despite increased cooperation between government and the drug industry and expedited approval of several useful drugs, these drugs are still prohibitively expensive. This Article explores the history and economics of the drug industry and proposes a system of national price regulation for all drugs.

Pharmaceutical Promotion in the Third World

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Lexchin
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Third World ◽  
Marketing Practice ◽  
Professional Groups ◽  
The Third ◽  
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers ◽  
Drug Companies ◽  
Pharmaceutical Promotion ◽  
The Third World

The pharmaceutical industry is motivated by profit and it is the quest for ever larger sales and profits that determines how the industry promotes its products. The author analyzes the methods that drug companies use in marketing their drugs to doctors and consumers, and the consequences in terms of costs and health. Some of the drugs advertised are valuable; others are irrational mixtures, useless or dangerous and should not be on the market. Even for products of proven worth, the companies have a double standard when it comes to promoting them in the Third World. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations does have a Code of Marketing Practice, but major weaknesses in the code render it almost impotent in regulating promotion. When consumers and health care professionals question the tactics of the industry, the response is usually to attack the credibility of the critics rather than to deal with the issues that they raise. Physicians and consumers are strongly influenced by pharmaceutical promotion, with all too predictable results: Doctors prescribe irrationally and consumers develop grossly distorted ideas about the value of modern medications. Reforms to promotional practices are possible, but may be beyond the resources of Third World countries. Achieving these reforms will require the efforts of Third World countries, progressive elements in the pharmaceutical industry, consumer and professional groups and some form of organized international support.

scholarly journals A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry’s engagement with UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Groups

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0252551
Author(s):  
Emily Rickard ◽  
Piotr Ozieranski
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Total Drug ◽  
Conflicts Of Interests ◽  
Policy Influence ◽  
Patient Organisations ◽  
Drug Companies ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Industry Needs

Our objective was to examine conflicts of interest between the UK’s health-focused All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the pharmaceutical industry between 2012 and 2018. APPGs are informal cross-party groups revolving around a particular topic run by and for Members of the UK’s Houses of Commons and Lords. They facilitate engagement between parliamentarians and external organisations, disseminate knowledge, and generate debate through meetings, publications, and events. We identified APPGs focusing on physical or mental health, wellbeing, health care, or treatment and extracted details of their payments from external donors disclosed on the Register for All-Party Parliamentary Groups. We identified all donors which were pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical industry-funded patient organisations. We established that sixteen of 146 (11%) health-related APPGs had conflicts of interest indicated by reporting payments from thirty-five pharmaceutical companies worth £1,211,345.81 (16.6% of the £7,283,414.90 received by all health-related APPGs). Two APPGs (Health and Cancer) received more than half of the total value provided by drug companies. Fifty APPGs also had received payments from patient organisations with conflicts of interest, indicated by reporting 304 payments worth £986,054.94 from 57 (of 84) patient organisations which had received £27,883,556.3 from pharmaceutical companies across the same period. In total, drug companies and drug industry-funded patient organisations provided a combined total of £2,197,400.75 (30.2% of all funding received by health-related APPGs) and 468 (of 1,177–39.7%) payments to 58 (of 146–39.7%) health-related APPGs, with the APPG for Cancer receiving the most funding. In conclusion, we found evidence of conflicts of interests through APPGs receiving substantial income from pharmaceutical companies. Policy influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry needs to be examined holistically, with an emphasis on relationships between actors potentially playing part in its lobbying campaigns. We also suggest ways of improving transparency of payment reporting by APPGs and pharmaceutical companies.

Evaluation of downstream integration in the US pharmaceutical industry

2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Simonet
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Vertical Integration ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Drug Market ◽  
Competitive Advantages ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
The Us ◽  
Integration Strategies

PurposeThis paper aims to review the vertical or quasi‐vertical integration that characterized the pharmaceutical industry in the mid‐1990s. The acquisitions and vertical partnerships that linked pharmacy benefits managers and drug manufacturers modified the structure of the market at that time. What were the motivations of those agreements? Did they induce any distortion on competition in the drug market? And why did they fail to achieve their desired strategic advantages?Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses established theoretical perspectives, such as the resource‐based view and the theory of contestable markets, as the basis for a descriptive analysis, documenting strategic decisions of vertical integration using supporting literature in marketing and strategy.FindingsVertical integration did not obtain the intended results (e.g. acquisition of competitive advantages). This perspective provides a framework to examine vertical integration strategies, applicable to other industries.Originality/valueThe paper reviews the objectives of vertical integration strategies of US drug firms in the 1990s and their hidden agendas.

Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry

2021 ◽  
pp. 183-208
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Green
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Educational Activities ◽  
Drug Companies ◽  
The Government ◽  
Collaborative Activities ◽  
Psychiatric Profession ◽  
The Relationship

Conflicts of interest pervade the relationship between the psychiatric profession and pharmaceutical industry, threatening ethical standards of psychiatric care. They influence the quality and cost of treatment, the objectivity of research and educational activities, and the integrity of individual psychiatrists, as well as the profession in general. Various groups, apart from drug companies, bear responsibility for the prevalence of conflicts of interest, including individual practitioners and researchers, medical academe, professional organizations both within and external to psychiatry, and branches of the government. Reforming practices and policies that encourage such conflicts can only be contained by efforts aimed at educating the profession and public as to the relevant issues, as well as enlisting governmental action, in order to hold industry and the profession more accountable for potentially unethical collaborative activities.

scholarly journals Is academic psychiatry for sale?

2003 ◽  
Vol 182 (5) ◽  
pp. 388-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Healy ◽  
Michael E. Thase
Keyword(s):  
Academic Psychiatry ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychiatric Service ◽  
University Of Pittsburgh ◽  
The North ◽  
Drug Companies ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on academic medicine is pervasive. Almost 90% of authors published in the Journal of the American Medical Associatio. have received research funding from, or acted as a consultant for, a drug company. Rising to this challenge, editors of medical journals have agreed strict rules on reporting sponsorship and conflicts of interest. Academic psychiatry is not exempt from the influence of industry. The relationship between drug companies and academic psychiatry is currently very close. But is this a problem? On the one hand, links with the pharmaceutical industry may be considered to compromise the independence of researchers and possibly discredit their published work. On the other hand the relationship may be seen as productive and mutually beneficial – particularly in an era of limited funds for research. These issues are discussed in this month's debate by Dr David Healy, Director of the North Wales Psychiatric Service, who is a well-known commentator on the pharmaceutical industry, and Dr Michael Thase, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the author of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of venlafaxine published in this Journal in 2001.

New pharmaceutical product development: Barriers to overcome and opportunities to exploit

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nic S Terblanche
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Biotechnology Industry ◽  
Pharmaceutical Product ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Pharmaceutical Product Development ◽  
Sales And Marketing ◽  
Rate Of Increase ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
The Cost

The pharmaceutical industry experienced an unprecedented rate of increase in the cost of developing new drugs while the number of new drugs that were approved and accepted in the marketplace has reached a very low level. Various factors are responsible for this state of affairs. One of the major opportunities available to the pharmaceutical industry to improve this situation is to collaborate with the biotechnology industry. The future solutions to a host of current diseases as well new strains of existing ones lie in the cooperation between these two industries. The pharmaceutical industry will, however, have to carefully manage challenges such as increased governmental control and the damaged image of the industry. There are many opportunities offered by offshoring, advanced application of information technology, climate change and a new approach to sales and marketing, all of which the pharmaceutical industry can exploit. Should the pharmaceutical industry manage to address the issues responsible for the high costs prevalent in the industry, its role as partner with the biotechnology industry could prove to be very beneficial for both these industries.

Relationship between drug company funding and outcomes of clinical psychiatric research

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 1647-1656 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT E. KELLY ◽  
LISA J. COHEN ◽  
RANDYE J. SEMPLE ◽  
PHILIP BIALER ◽  
ADAM LAU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
Drug Manufacturer ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Drug Companies ◽  
Design Variables ◽  
The Relationship

Background. Pharmaceutical industry funding of psychiatric research has increased significantly in recent decades, raising the question of a relationship between pharmaceutical company funding of clinical psychiatric studies and the outcomes of those studies. This study examines this relationship.Method. Abstracts of articles from 1992 and 2002 in four peer-reviewed psychiatric journals were examined. Drug outcomes (n=542) for clinical studies were evaluated and then compared across sponsorship source. Outcome raters were blind to source of sponsorship. The percentage of these studies sponsored by drug companies in 2002 v. 1992 was also compared. In a secondary analysis, the contribution of a series of potentially mediating variables to the relationship between sponsorship source and study outcome was assessed via logistic regression.Results. The percentage of studies sponsored by drug companies increased from 25% in 1992 to 57% in 2002. Favorable outcomes were significantly more common in studies sponsored by the drug manufacturer (78%) than in studies without industry sponsorship (48%) or sponsored by a competitor (28%). These relationships remained after controlling for the effects of journal, year, drug studied, time since FDA drug approval, diagnosis, sample size, and selected study design variables.Conclusions. These data indicate an association between pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical studies and positive outcomes of those studies. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this relationship.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document