IBJNews

Growth in drug spending to slow as generics rise

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The annual growth rate in spending on drugs may be cut in half over the next five years as people opt for less expensive generic medicines over brand-name treatments, a health-care research group said Wednesday, highlighting the challenge pharmaceutical firms like Eli Lilly and Co. are facing.

While global expenditures for medicines will still reach almost $1.1 trillion by 2015, the annual compounded growth rate may be reduced to as little as 3 percent through 2015, compared with 6.2 percent over the last five years, according to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics in Parsippany, N.J. Still, emerging markets will double their purchases to as much as $315 billion, the institute said in a report.

Expiring patents on branded medicines will yield $98 billion in net savings to government health plans and commercial insurers during the next five years, with the U.S. providing the biggest increase in spending for generic alternatives, the institute said. Market share for branded drugs will drop to 53 percent from 64 percent last year, according to the report.

“This patent dividend may actually be coming as a surprise to payers and not yet fully worked into their own estimates,” Murray Aiken, the institute’s executive director, said in a conference call Tuesday. “It’s a reasonably significant slowdown.”

The 2008 global financial recession and recent government actions to control drug prices in nations such as China, Italy and Japan also are reasons for the slowing growth rate, Aiken said. Rebates and discounts offered by drugmakers aren’t reflected in IMS audits and may add as much as $75 billion by 2015, the report said.

While the pharmaceutical industry’s research and development spending has increased, “everyone is focused on trying to raise the productivity of the R&D investment and that continues to be a struggle,” Aiken said.

Last year, U.S. regulators approved 21 medicines for sale, the fewest since 2007. Indianapolis-based Lilly and industry peers Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. all failed in 2010 to gain approval for new drugs.

Already this year, Lilly and German drugmaker Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH were cleared to sell the drug linagliptin to help improve blood sugar control in people with Type 2 diabetes, New York-based Bristol-Myers won U.S. marketing approval for its skin cancer treatment Yervoy, and New Jersey-based Merck gained approval for the first hepatitis C medication, Victrelis, in more than a decade.

“This comes back to ‘innovation wins out’ and if you have the innovative products, the global market is only getting larger,” Aiken said. “If not, you’re competing against an ever-more aggressive set of generic producers.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT