I need two pages for this case. The first page is about the competitors for Teva and in this case talking about two products one is generics and the other is innovative drugs. compare each product for Teva with other companies like generics with generics and innovative drugs with innovative drugs. Also, in the case there is income statements for each products and compare these numbers with Teva with other companies, such as Teva generics revenue with other companies that would make clear and understandable. The second page is about what are the issues in the case for Teva.
THE MAIN RESOURCES IS THE CASE please
Also, I need outlines for each page please do it well Please do not write introduction for both of the pages and no conclusion as well. just go ahead and start writing about the competitors and the issues thanks a lot and do it well plz
Competitors and the Issue About the Case: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Comparing Teva with Its Competitors
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a multinational pharmaceutical company with its headquarters in Petah Tikva, Israel. The company was founded in 1901 by Chaim Solomon, Moshe Levin and Yitschak Elstein. It specializes in the manufacture, production and supply of generic drugs. However, in the early 1980s, the company began to specialize in innovative drugs as well. It is the largest generic drug manufacturer and one of 15 of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Khanna, Palepu & Madras, 2006).
Generic products are the bioequivalent versions of the non-patented drugs that are been produced by innovative industries. These generic products are divided into commodity generics, niche generics and biosimilars. Since these generic drugs do not involve initial research and development costs, they were valued at a lower price than the original drugs. Compared to those of their competitors, Teva’s generic products had have a broader range, lower prices, and better volume-based discounts. Moreover, Teva has fewer revisions on their ANDA applications compared to their competitors. As of 2006, the company had managed to control 18% of the U.S. generics market, reporting $84 billion in brand sales (Khanna, Palepu & Madras, 2006).
In the innovative drug business, the company launched Copaxone in 1996 that later became a leading drug in treating multiple sclerosis. In innovative drug discovery, Teva relies on external institutions while one of their main competitors, Pfizer relies on internal basic research. As a result, whereas Teva’s competitors spend $1 million on innovative drug development, Teva spends approximately a quarter of this amount to facilitate the marketing of the innovative drug. In general, the research and development cost incurred by Teva is 7% on average while that of Pfizer and Novartis stands at 14% and 15% respectively (Khanna, Palepu & Madras, 2006).
Issues Addressed in the Teva Pharmaceuticals Case
The Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries case addresses several issues related to the production, manufacture, marketing and supply of both generic and innovative drugs, one of them being the emergence of low-cost pharmaceutical companies. In India and Eastern Europe, the low-cost firms have become a threat to other firms that have been in the industry for decades due to their overly low prices. Such a competitive advantage can easily cause an imbalance in the revenues of these established pharmaceutical companies.
Another issue that is addressed in the Teva Pharmaceuticals case is research and development (R&D) costs that are incurred in the production of innovative drug products. Teva has been incurring lower costs in the R&D as compared than its competitors, thereby enhancing its positioning in the market. However, since the lead time for developing a drug is between 10 and 15 years during which research studies, laboratory tests, experiments and approval procedures are undertaken, the overall R&D costs for Teva have remained considerably high at an average of $500 million annually (Khanna, Palepu & Madrass, 2006). This situation may explain why the company has chosen to abandon the strategy that involves the participation of external institutions in preference for carrying out its own original research.
Lastly, the issue of patenting has been portrayed as being contention in this case study. For instance, Teva is among the pharmaceutical companies that have been affected by the rules of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office which only guarantees 10 to 12 years of patent protection for new rugs and chemical entities. The case provides wide-reaching insights, reporting that between 2005 and 2006, around $17 billion worth of drugs had lost their patent protection under these new patent protection rules (Khanna, Palepu & Madras, 2006).
Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G., & Madras, C. D. (2006). Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Harvard Business School, March 30, 2010.
Use the following coupon code :