Latest news with #drugcompanies
Telegraph
14-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Forget Ozempic and Mounjaro, this firm is on the edge of a weight-loss breakthrough
Questor is The Telegraph's stock-picking column, helping you decode the markets and offering insights on where to invest. This year, drug companies have been living under a cloud of uncertainty created by the Trump administration. Threats of tough action on drug pricing and tariffs have fuelled nervousness, while recently agreed cuts to Medicaid in the 'big beautiful bill' are also causing concern. But medicine will always be a priority for the sick, and innovations from the pharmaceutical industry are vital for creating healthier societies as populations age. Biotech giant Amgen looks particularly well placed to weather current uncertainties and prosper from the long-term prospects of its industry. A first-class dividend record, which includes increased payouts in each of the last 13 years, is testament to the resilience of the business. Key to this is that unlike many rivals, no one product dominates Amgen's $33.4bn (£24.7bn) of sales. In fact, the company boasts 14 blockbuster drugs with over $1bn sales each. This product diversity means that while its biggest selling treatment – an osteoporosis drug called Prolia that generated $4.4bn revenues last year – is expected to see rapid declines following its loss of patent protection in February, the company's top line is forecast to grow. The drugs Amgen sells cover a number of different areas, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and rare diseases. Recent trading has been strong, too, with 21 drugs reporting record sales last year and 14 reporting double-digit growth. Amgen is experiencing particularly strong growth from cholesterol drug Repatha, which is forecast to net $2.8bn this year, and osteoporosis treatment Evenity, both of which target underserved patient groups. Sales are also soaring for cancer drug Blincyto. In terms of the problems posed by Trump, Amgen looks well placed. Tariffs should not be a major issue given it mostly manufactures in the US, where it is currently increasing capacity. Having just opened a new facility in Ohio, it plans to plough another $900m into growth in the state and a further $1bn is being spent building in North Carolina. Much of this spending is aimed at increasing production of biosimilars, which are lower cost versions of existing drugs that have lost patent protection. This focus should help position the group to deal with the US government's drug-pricing agenda because biosimilars help lower healthcare costs. Amgen has said Medicaid cuts could have a material adverse impact on some drug sales, however, the cuts passed in the big beautiful bill last week were scaled back in order to get it approved. Reassurance about prospects can also be taken from the number of top fund managers backing the stock – all among the best-performing 3pc globally according to financial publisher Citywire. A total of 14 of these individuals back the shares. The level of smart-money backing has won Amgen a place in Citywire's Global Elite Companies index, which is home to the 76 very best ideas from among the c.6,000 stocks held across the portfolios of the top managers Citywire tracks. For these backers, the potential of Amgen's drug development is a key part of its attraction. Investors have been particularly excited about a long-lasting obesity drug Amgen has begun late-stage phase III trials for, called MariTide. It produces similar levels of weight-loss as Wegovy and Zepbound, which are multibillion-dollar treatments made by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly respectively, but MariTide only needs to be injected once a month or less, compared with weekly for the existing drugs. While the potential is exciting, the market reacted negatively to recent news of high levels of nausea during early use. Amgen reckons it can address this by starting patients on lower doses. Better trial news has recently come from cancer treatments, specifically a stomach cancer drug called Bemarituzumab. Amgen is also looking to extend the uses of some of its existing blockbuster medicines. The company put a record $6bn into research and development last year pursuing new opportunities, which represented more than 18pc of sales and a 25pc increase on 2023. While Amgen's margins have nudged down over recent years, it is nevertheless highly profitable. It reported 46.9pc underlying operating margins last year. Meanwhile, solid earnings per share growth is predicted over the next two years of just over 4pc on an annualised basis. That looks an attractive package with the shares priced at 14 times forecast earnings and yielding 3.4pc, especially once the potential for positive surprises from the busy development pipeline is factored in. British buyers of the shares need to fill out the correct paperwork to minimise withholding taxes and check for any extra dealing costs with brokers. Questor says: buy Ticker: NYSE:AMGN
Bloomberg
09-07-2025
- Health
- Bloomberg
FTSE 100 Live: UK Stocks to Edge Higher as New Tariff Threats Swirl
Health care stocks are going to be another area of focus today. This comes after President Donald Trump indicated he could announce new tariffs on imports of pharmaceuticals. These new levies look pretty steep: Trump said drug companies could face a tax as high as 200% on imports if they didn't move production to the US in the next year. Keep an eye on stocks like AstraZeneca and GSK, though note that there have been consistent threats around possible pharma tariffs in recent months which haven't materialised, at least not yet. That might mean some of that risk is already priced in.
Forbes
06-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
How Pharmaceutical Tariffs Could Worsen Generic Drug Shortages
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 2: President Donald Trump signs an executive order imposing tariffs on ... More imported goods during a "Make America Wealthy Again" trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Touting the event as "Liberation Day", Trump announced sweeping new tariffs targeting goods imported to the U.S. on countries including China, Japan and India. Though excluded from the tariffs announced in early April, pharmaceuticals may be included in soon-to-be-announced tariffs. (Photo by) Tariffs are in the news again as a 90-day pause in U.S. imported duties is about to expire on July 9th. While pharmaceuticals have thus far been exempt, President Trump has threatened to change that with 25% or higher tariffs on imported drugs, despite it being a violation of World Trade Organization rules, which exempt pharmaceutical products from such levies. Public health experts say tariffs would likely mean higher prices of branded pharmaceuticals and more generic drug shortages. The administration's stated rationale is that tariffs would incentivize drug makers to move their manufacturing facilities back to the U.S. and reduce reliance on countries that might halt trade in the event of war or another emergency. The majority of brand name drugs used in the U.S. are imported. Tariffs will likely lead to higher prices of branded products, but also onshoring of manufacturing facilities. Indeed, several major drug companies have recently announced new U.S. manufacturing investments, likely in anticipation of future trade penalties. Nevertheless, reshoring takes years to carry out to completion. In the short term, … More than 90% of prescriptions dispensed in the U.S. are generics. In the first quarter of 2024, a record 323 drugs were in shortage, at least 70% of which were related to generics. Shortages of generic drugs include antibiotics and chemotherapy treatments. According to a study by top subject matter experts from the industry and academia, 83% of the top 100 prescribed generic medications are import dependent to one degree or another … critical therefore to reshore generic manufacturing … Generic drugs often rely on active pharmaceutical ingredients from countries such as India and China. But with only a limited number of generic drug ingredients produced domestically. imposing tariffs on API could in the short term heighten already existing shortages or lead to new ones as well as possibly raising prices. As Marta Wosińska and Rena Conti explain, two main factors determine whether tariffs will increase prices: The degree of tariff exposure and the ability of manufacturers to pass on price increases. Here, tariff exposure reflects the extent to which production of a given drug includes imported ingredients s exposed to various tariffs. The ability to pass on tariffs onto buyers will depend on how competitive the markets are, how constrained production is in the short term, and the extent to which there are contracts or government regulations that limit manufacturer's ability to raise prices. These factors will differ for branded and generic drugs Much higher profit margins for branded pharmaceuticals may blunt the impact of tariffs, as these can at least be partially absorbed. However, much lower margin products, such as generic small molecules, is a different story. Normally, drug shortages would give rise to price increases which in turn would incentivize entrants … But there are limitations. The Medicaid rebate program requires insurance plans participating in the program to purchase drugs at the 'best price,' in other words, the lowest price at which a drug is sold, virtually anywhere in the marketplace. This can limit generic manufacturers' ability to transfer price increases. Then there are mandatory Medicaid inflation rebates which could inhibit the ability of generic firms to pass on price increases if tariffs are introduced. since it requires them to pay rebates if the average price they charge to all buyers increases faster than a common measure of inflation, the consumer price index. said tariffs on drugs could lead to generic drug shortages. Tariffs will provide a strong incentive for increasing U.S. manufacturing of brand-name drugs but not of off-patent generics, which represent over 90% of the volume of prescriptions in the U.S. Tariff pressure for both domestic and foreign manufacturers of generics will test their already low margins, potentially leading to product discontinuations or cost cutting that erodes quality. Any production disruptions in the already fragile generic injectable markets are likely to result in more shortages. Adding tariffs would raise costs further, especially for generic medications, which account for 92% of all prescriptions in the U.S.
CNN
17-06-2025
- Business
- CNN
RFK Jr. wants to crack down on drug ads. That could cripple some broadcasters
For decades, pharmaceutical companies have shelled out big bucks to broadcasters to place ads between TV segments. But a pair of policies being considered by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could change that and leave broadcasters in financial straits. While not an outright ban, the two policies would make it significantly more difficult and expensive for drug companies to push their products across broadcasters' airwaves, according to a Bloomberg report on Tuesday. The policies look to either mandate that advertisers elaborate on the risks posed by their drugs — forcing ads to be longer and, therefore, more expensive — or bar drugmakers from writing off direct-to-consumer ads as business expenses on their taxes, also padding the bill, Bloomberg reported. Drug ads, which are illegal in most countries, have been a hallmark of US television since the 1980s. By raising the bar on pharmaceutical ads, the Trump administration threatens a crucial revenue source for broadcasters. Drug companies spent $5.15 billion on TV ads in 2024, a significant figure considering a recent study found that drugmakers spent almost $14 billion on direct-to-consumer ads in 2023. Despite leaner audience numbers, linear television saw an uptick in pharmaceutical ad buys in 2024, which reached $3.4 billion during the first eight months of 2024, an 8.1% year-over-year increase. Get Reliable Sources newsletter Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your 50% of those drug ads were split across news broadcasters, including MSNBC, CBS News, CNN and Fox News, according to a December report from research firm eMarketer. Kennedy has long criticized the pharmaceutical industry's ability to directly advertise to consumers, which he argues leads to Americans' greater use of prescription medications. HHS acknowledged it is examining the issue but said no final decisions have been made. 'As Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized, direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins,' HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement, adding that the department is 'exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers.' The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a main industry trade association known as PhRMA, did not return a request for comment. The pair of policies would affect broadcasters airing entertainment and news alike. While news broadcasters' finances are buttressed by several sources of income — including ad revenue, licensing fees, cable and satellite fees and digital subscriptions — disincentivizing direct-to-consumer drug ads would harm traditional broadcasters and cable companies. News broadcasters have struggled for years as digital platforms, including social media platforms and streaming giants, have peeled away their ad income. After Kennedy floated banning drug ads in November, Steve Tomsic, Fox Corporation's chief financial officer, told the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference that 'it would take an enormously draconian ban on it for it to really have an impact.' 'From a quantitative perspective, it's low, single-digit percentage of our overall revenue,' Tomsic said of Fox Corp's drug ads. Fox did not provide a comment for this story at the time of publication. A CNN spokesperson emphasized the policies would be bad for the industry. Disney, ABC News and MSNBC did not respond when asked how the policies would affect their businesses. NBCUniversal, NBC News, Paramount, CBS News and Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN's parent company) declined to comment. President Donald Trump has attempted to exert control over drug industry advertising in the past. During his first term, HHS issued a regulation that would have required drug makers to include their list prices in TV ads, but a federal judge nixed the effort, saying the agency had overstepped its authority. It was a centerpiece of Trump's efforts to lower drug prices at the time. While cutting drug costs is not as high a priority this term, Trump has signed two executive orders that aim to target high drug prices. One of them called for HHS to explore facilitating pharmaceutical companies' ability to directly sell their drugs to patients at the 'most-favored-nation price,' which is tied to lower prices paid in other developed countries. The Trump administration is not alone in targeting drug ads this term. Just last week, a group of legislators led by Senators Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, and Angus King, an independent from Maine, introduced a bill that looked to ban drugmakers from promoting their products on direct-to-consumer channels. Instead of an outright ban, HHS' policies would strong-arm drug advertisers into submission, avoiding costly legal battles that would play out in the courts. The US Food and Drug Administration established strict guidelines for TV drug ads in 1985, mandating that they include the drugs' side effects. It wasn't until 1997, when the FDA relaxed its policy, that the ads really took off. There is no cap on how many or how often broadcasters can run drug ads. Drug stocks dipped following Bloomberg's Tuesday report, with Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) down 2.69 points, Pfizer (PFE) down 0.40 points and AstraZeneca (AZN) down 2.47 points at the time of publication.
CNN
17-06-2025
- Business
- CNN
RFK Jr. wants to crack down on drug ads. That could cripple some broadcasters
For decades, pharmaceutical companies have shelled out big bucks to broadcasters to place ads between TV segments. But a pair of policies being considered by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could change that and leave broadcasters in financial straits. While not an outright ban, the two policies would make it significantly more difficult and expensive for drug companies to push their products across broadcasters' airwaves, according to a Bloomberg report on Tuesday. The policies look to either mandate that advertisers elaborate on the risks posed by their drugs — forcing ads to be longer and, therefore, more expensive — or bar drugmakers from writing off direct-to-consumer ads as business expenses on their taxes, also padding the bill, Bloomberg reported. Drug ads, which are illegal in most countries, have been a hallmark of US television since the 1980s. By raising the bar on pharmaceutical ads, the Trump administration threatens a crucial revenue source for broadcasters. Drug companies spent $5.15 billion on TV ads in 2024, a significant figure considering a recent study found that drugmakers spent almost $14 billion on direct-to-consumer ads in 2023. Despite leaner audience numbers, linear television saw an uptick in pharmaceutical ad buys in 2024, which reached $3.4 billion during the first eight months of 2024, an 8.1% year-over-year increase. Get Reliable Sources newsletter Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your 50% of those drug ads were split across news broadcasters, including MSNBC, CBS News, CNN and Fox News, according to a December report from research firm eMarketer. Kennedy has long criticized the pharmaceutical industry's ability to directly advertise to consumers, which he argues leads to Americans' greater use of prescription medications. HHS acknowledged it is examining the issue but said no final decisions have been made. 'As Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized, direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins,' HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement, adding that the department is 'exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers.' The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a main industry trade association known as PhRMA, did not return a request for comment. The pair of policies would affect broadcasters airing entertainment and news alike. While news broadcasters' finances are buttressed by several sources of income — including ad revenue, licensing fees, cable and satellite fees and digital subscriptions — disincentivizing direct-to-consumer drug ads would harm traditional broadcasters and cable companies. News broadcasters have struggled for years as digital platforms, including social media platforms and streaming giants, have peeled away their ad income. After Kennedy floated banning drug ads in November, Steve Tomsic, Fox Corporation's chief financial officer, told the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference that 'it would take an enormously draconian ban on it for it to really have an impact.' 'From a quantitative perspective, it's low, single-digit percentage of our overall revenue,' Tomsic said of Fox Corp's drug ads. Fox did not provide a comment for this story at the time of publication. A CNN spokesperson emphasized the policies would be bad for the industry. Disney, ABC News and MSNBC did not respond when asked how the policies would affect their businesses. NBCUniversal, NBC News, Paramount, CBS News and Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN's parent company) declined to comment. President Donald Trump has attempted to exert control over drug industry advertising in the past. During his first term, HHS issued a regulation that would have required drug makers to include their list prices in TV ads, but a federal judge nixed the effort, saying the agency had overstepped its authority. It was a centerpiece of Trump's efforts to lower drug prices at the time. While cutting drug costs is not as high a priority this term, Trump has signed two executive orders that aim to target high drug prices. One of them called for HHS to explore facilitating pharmaceutical companies' ability to directly sell their drugs to patients at the 'most-favored-nation price,' which is tied to lower prices paid in other developed countries. The Trump administration is not alone in targeting drug ads this term. Just last week, a group of legislators led by Senators Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, and Angus King, an independent from Maine, introduced a bill that looked to ban drugmakers from promoting their products on direct-to-consumer channels. Instead of an outright ban, HHS' policies would strong-arm drug advertisers into submission, avoiding costly legal battles that would play out in the courts. The US Food and Drug Administration established strict guidelines for TV drug ads in 1985, mandating that they include the drugs' side effects. It wasn't until 1997, when the FDA relaxed its policy, that the ads really took off. There is no cap on how many or how often broadcasters can run drug ads. Drug stocks dipped following Bloomberg's Tuesday report, with Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) down 2.69 points, Pfizer (PFE) down 0.40 points and AstraZeneca (AZN) down 2.47 points at the time of publication.
