R&D spending soars above value of new drugs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

To understand the depths of the pharmaceutical industry’s recent struggles, consider this: The industry has been spending $57 billion more per year on research and development than the value of the products it has been launching. That’s a problem.

The analysis comes from a June report by EvaluatePharma, a London-based research firm. It compared the value (calculated as future sales in today’s dollars) of products launched from 2008 to 2010—which came out to be $70 billion per year. The value of R&D spending during the same period: $127 billion per year.

“The Industry as a whole is not yet generating a return on R&D investment,” wrote Anthony Raeside, EvaluatePharma’s head of research. “Even if all R&D was successful, it is unlikely governments would be capable of reimbursing all new products. It is telling that when Pfizer announced the removal of $1.5 [billion] from its 2012 R&D spend, its stock price rose 5 percent. In an age of austerity, who will be next to wield the ax to their R&D budget?”

One quick answer: not Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. When the Reuters news agency asked Lilly CEO John Lechleieter about competitors cutting R&D spending, he said, "It's crazy; first of all, by definition this is a research-and-development-based industry.”

EvaluatePharma predicts overall prescription drug sales will rise 4 percent per year between now and 2016—an improvement from its year-ago forecast of 2.9 percent.

But the prediction still pegs the drug industry’s growth below the growth of the global economy in coming years.

Lilly, of course, has far worse problems than that, as it is losing patent protection on five of its best-selling drugs through 2014. EvaluatePharma predicts Lilly’s sales will shrink 4 percent per year between now and 2016.

In spite of that, Lilly plans to earmark as much as 25 percent of annual sales—or more than $5 billion a year—for research and development. Last year, Lilly spent $4.9 billion on R&D, which represented 21 percent of sales.

"Lilly is showing it is very committed to the innovative R&D model," JP Morgan analyst Chris Schott told Reuters.


  • War on Drugs
    Pharmaceutical companies cause OVER 100,000 deaths each year from the drugs they push on the public… that’s 10 times more deaths than from street drugs. Does EVERYone need a pill for something? The real drug cartels moving their product on unassuming victims are the Big Pharma Companies, averaging over $25 Billion in revenue EACH. Their agenda and money has corrupted Washington and the FDA. Voice your concern with me at http://tinyurl.com/3ut7m4z

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. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1