Drugmakers, pharmacists at odds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. and its peers are increasingly clashing with pharmacies in an effort to keep patients buying their brand-name drugs.

Indianapolis-based Lilly recently rejected CVS Caremark’s demands for big price discounts on its insulins, Humalog and Humulin, according to The Wall Street Journal. In response, CVS kicked Lilly’s insulins off the list of medicines it recommends to the employers and health plans for which CVS acts as a pharmacy benefits manager.

Being off the list could prompt CVS’s clients not to cover Lilly’s insulins, because they would get a smaller rebate on the drugs, the Journal reported. CVS said customers could get insulins made by Novo Nordisk A/S for less money.

"In light of the aggressive pricing required to win this business—and the fact that only a small percentage of Lilly's insulin franchise would be impacted by this change—we ultimately decided it did not make good business sense for Lilly to be included," Lilly officials said in a statement.

Last year, Lilly underbid Denmark-based Novo Nordisk to win an exclusive contract to provide the insulins sold by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. under its ReliOn brand name.

In another battle that could set a precedent for the industry, New York-based Pfizer Inc. has tapped an outside firm to set up a mail-order pharmacy so it can sell the cholesterol drug Lipitor directly to consumers.

Even thought Lipitor loses patent protection in the United States on Wednesday, Pfizer will offer the drug at a price that has a similar co-pay to its new generic competitor, atorvastatin. Some pharmacy benefit mangers, such as New Jersey-based Medco Health Solutions, have agreed to lower Lipitor co-payments to the price of a generic and reject claims for atorvastatin.

"Previously, Big Pharma has tended to walk away" from top-selling drugs once they lose patent protection, Pfizer CEO Ian Read told the Journal. "Now, we have a flat-out different culture."

If Pfizer’s plan retains even a fraction of Lipitor’s $13 billion per year in worldwide sales, it may prompt other companies facing giant patent expirations—which would include Lilly—to follow suit.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

  2. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

  3. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

  4. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

  5. I live downtown Indy and had to be in downtown Chicago for a meeting. In other words, I am the target demographic for this train. It leaves at 6:00-- early but doable. Then I saw it takes 5+ hours. No way. I drove. I'm sure I paid 3 to 5 times as much once you factor in gas, parking, and tolls, but it was reimbursed so not a factor for me. Any business traveler is going to take the option that gets there quickly and reliably... and leisure travelers are going to take the option that has a good schedule and promotional prices (i.e., Megabus). Indy to Chicago is the right distance (too short to fly but takes several hours to drive) that this train could be extremely successful even without subsidies, if they could figure out how to have several frequencies (at least 3x/day) and make the trip in a reasonable amount of time. For those who have never lived on the east coast-- Amtrak is the #1 choice for NY-DC and NY-Boston. They have the Acela service, it runs almost every hour, and it takes you from downtown to downtown. It beats driving and flying hands down. It is too bad that we cannot build something like this in the midwest, at least to connect the bigger cities.