Pfizer Jumps the Shark over Biosimilar Failure

Discussion in 'Pfizer' started by anonymous, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:13 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Bingo! It's about who brings the best value. Ian Read and Andy Schmeltz should be ashamed about how Pfizer is trying defining the value from their own corrupt, corporate perspective. Maybe Ian and Andy should re-examine a different market framework aligned to real customer centric value. Shame on you Pfizer!

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/biosimilar-medicines-commissioning-framework.pdf
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    So, Pfizer is proposing that every drug should be available through every payer and every pharmacy? No competition, but just an equal opportunity playing field for everyone. Wow!
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    So much for capitalism! Wait...... aren't they the same company that's against drug price regulations?
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    No, Pfizer is arguing that J&J has created an environment where their is no competition, namely for them. Unfortunately, its the presence of Pfizer and Merck that has created competition, which caused J&J to retool its customer value proposition to make them the current & future winner. The issue for Pfizer is they don't want to take down price or provide upfront cost offsets to be competitive. That a Pfizer problem not J&J's.
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Pfizer had the same opportunity to be competitive, but failed to execute despite having similar contracting experience with its products across Payers, PBMs, and GPOs. Nothing was unreasonable or unfair relative to standard industry practice. Pfizer simple lost and is crying Wolf! What B.S.
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Nailed it.:rolleyes:
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I remember hearing that, many years ago, a judge ordered Dupont to send its engineers to a competitor to assist in ramping up their production of nylon. The production process was difficult, and antitrust laws (apparently) require(d) a second or third seller or Dupont would have a monopoly. This suit seems logical except all of the other business shenanigans like pay-for-delay that occurs in this space. Who really knows any more.
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    News Flash: Inflectra is not Remicaid! It's similar, but not the same. Can't have "parity" by FDA definition.
     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Exclusive dealing or requirements contracts between manufacturers and retailers are common and are generally lawful. Good luck Pfizer on your "Hail-Mary" play, especially knowing you've played the same hand. You guys really are angry and desperate!
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    new business model: if you can’t sell, then sue. Else blame the reps.

    All those millions that are going to be spent on a lawsuit that’ll be in the courts for years could have gone into making Remi-Kopy Kat more attractive to the customer.

    It’s always been about the patient.

    FU Pfizer. Worst company ever.
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Ian Read is a dotard.
     
  12. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Is the patient paying more out of pocket with Remicaid vs Inflectra in a buy-n-bill situation? If so, Pfizer might have a leg to stand on. Obviously, the payer must be benefiting more with the J&J product, services, and potential discounting, than what Pfizer is offering.
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    The odds are against Pfizer, but this again could be about market optics and trying to send a broader market message given the amount of the suit. Disclosure and depositions will prove interesting and imagine Pfizer calling in payers to fill in the "real" details at a trial.
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    At least he has an excuse, Diem and Cheryl are just idiots.
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    simple fact is J&J owns Pfizer on this front. they ate our lunch. only one place to blame and that is senior leadership. launched a generic for slight discount and j&j reacted and adjusted to the changing market.
    no one to blame but pfe upper mgmt because they blew it. it will never turn around.
    Hopefully the next biosimilar launch they get correct
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    You've got to be kidding! Pfizer is essentially asking J&J not to be so competitive and admitting they F__Uped! Is this really the behemoth of the pharmaceutical industry or representative of just how detached and untalented they have become. No wonder the analyst's are so concerned. Pfizer is a joke. LOL!
     
  17. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Nope; because all the other companies with originator biologics will follow JnJ’s playbook strategy & block biosims with similar tactics. Cost of suits will pale in comparison to loss of revenue from share erosion.

    So, unless gov’t steps in, biosims are DOA.

    This don’t look good, do it:
    http://m.koreabiomed.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1451
     
  18. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Agreed. Brand drugs no longer have to roll over to generic or biosimilar loss, if the originator is willing to compete and bring more value to the table. Its a game changer strategy across the board.
     
  19. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    It’ll be interesting to see how Pfizer & other behemoth drug companies handle these bills. Since they sell brand drugs but are also trying to make big loot with biosimilars. They can’t hide their two-faced biz strategy like they do with generics behind some unknown name like Greenstone.
    But don’t worry. The geniuses who run the Pfizer PAC are pros at double speak.
    Read This:
    http://www.aafp.org/news/practice-professional-issues/20170802prescriptioncosts.html
     
  20. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Its Pfizer's nightmare scenario. All that investment and infrastructure bursting with there delusional bubble that again sits squarely with Jenny Alltoft and Diem Nguyen. Share holders should sue the board!