UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: Hallucigenia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1856  
Subject: Re: Q: Generic vs. Pharmaceutical Date: 12/21/2001 7:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Hi HGBG

You raise some good questions, and you might like to throw it over to the Biotech board - it's late here so I'll try and make my points brief.

The main one is that for all the noise the big pharmas make about patent expiries, they do carry on selling ex-patent drugs - Glaxo still sells some $500m-worth of Zantac a year for instance, despite the patent on that going 5-10 years ago. You mention Prilosec, known as Losec here - that's a good example where a drugs company will stop pushing an old drug, as they will make more money by pushing a 'better' replacement, in this case Nexium. But there's an interesting area of health economics where you get a new drug that's marginally more effective but a lot more expensive - collective health schemes in particular may take the view that they're only prepared to pay for the old one. Bayer aspirin is another interesting one - it's debatable whether you can really say that it's the same company selling Bayer asprin as patented it all those years ago - those US assets of IG Farben ended up with Sterling, although the aspirin bits were bought back by a successor company calling themselves Bayer. It's a great example of marketing though - here in the UK, Bayer does not sell branded aspirin, it's universally bought as a generic. This highlights the fact that in the US, direct to consumer advertising means that branding and marketing can become more important that mere price and efficacy. It's important to remember that big pharma is more about marketing than research.

I'd also guess that they have pretty strict targets for returns on capital employed and that kind of thing, which means that generic manufacturing is much less attractive for them, but can represent a big market for a much smaller company to target.

Finally, as has been discussed on the Biotech board, the issue of generic biologicals is a whole different ballgame, as a biological (antibody etc) needs to undergo fresh trials if it's made by a different company. Conversely, some drug targets are attractive enough for several antibodies to be aimed at them simultaneously - anti-TNF strategies are one such. Even in generic biologicals though, you see some companies targetting the market outside the US - the London-quoted GeneMedix (GMX.L) is one such.

Fool on

Hallucigenia
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Pencils of Promise - Back to School Drive
"Pencils of Promise works with communities across the globe to build schools and create programs that provide education opportunities for children."
Post of the Day:
Saul's Investing Discussions

Why Did I Buy a Bunch of PFIE Today?
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement