Fundamental Thinking

A Bitter Pill: Why Big Pharma’s Era of Big Profits May Be Expiring

Pharmaceutical companies, pressured by buyers to lower drug prices, find their high profit margins threatened.

Key Takeaways

  • Governments and health insurers—the chief buyers of pharmaceuticals—are increasingly exercising their bargaining power to reduce prescription drug prices.

  • Facing tougher buyers, drug makers are seeing their profit margins squeezed.

  • In this environment, the companies that stand the best chance of sustaining high profitability are those with a pipeline of innovative research ideas.

  • Pharmaceutical companies may be able to outmuscle buyers in negotiating the price of a new drug when the current version of that drug dominates its therapeutic space in the market.

Harding Loevner's Tim Kubarych, David Glickman, and Patrick Todd discuss the implications of the greater use of buyer power within the global pharmaceutical industry.

The average annual profit margins of the world’s 25 largest pharmaceutical companies fluctuated between 15% and 20% from 2006 to 2015, while the average margins of their US non-pharma peers fluctuated between 4% and 9% in the same period, according to a report from the non-partisan US Government Accountability Office.1 But Big Pharma’s outsized profit streak may be coming to an end. Spurred by rising prices and increasing national spending on health care, governments and health insurance companies—the chief buyers of pharmaceuticals (i.e., those who pay for them on patients’ behalf)—are pressuring pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices.

“In many countries around the world, we’re seeing buyers exercise their bargaining power more heavily,” says Health Care Analyst David Glickman, CFA. “There’s a perception that they’re no longer getting sufficient value for money.”

If buyers continue to exert their power, many drug makers could see their profit margins drop, says Glickman. Their average returns on invested capital have already fallen from roughly 20% in 2008 to 10% in 2018, an indication that industry-wide profits may soon decline.2 Even so, pharma companies that make smart resource-allocation decisions around R&D, or that already dominate a therapeutic space, could still be highly profitable in the new competitive environment, he adds.


Change of Heart

Until recently, governments and health insurers had not fully exploited their buyer power over Big Pharma. By and large, buyers accepted high pharmaceutical industry profits against a backdrop of continuous drug innovation that contributed to steadily improving health outcomes. So, what has caused the shift in approach?



In countries with universal health care systems, the government is often the sole buyer of prescription drugs. In the US, which accounts for around 45% of the world’s pharmaceutical market by revenue, the main buyers are health insurance companies (in conjunction with the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), who act as their brokers) and the federal government, which purchases drugs for public programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Affairs health care program.

One of the main reasons is changing demographics. In countries with aging populations, which includes virtually all middle- and high-income countries, per capita consumption of prescription drugs tends to increase, straining governments’ national health care budgets. In the US, characterized by the private market, voters are stepping up pressure on Washington to take action against what they see as spiraling out-of-pocket costs. In turn, the US government is leaning on health insurance companies and PBMs to extract better deals from pharma companies.


Extraction Techniques

Buyers have been flexing their muscles in a variety of ways in their quest to drive down Big Pharma’s prices. In some countries with universal health care, governments are promoting a greater uptake of generics—in addition to direct price negotiations. This has been the policy of Japan, which has seen its national health care spending balloon over the past decade due to an aging population. Low generic penetration has allowed pharmaceutical companies to reap healthy profits from decades-old drugs long after patents have expired. In the short term, Japan hopes cheaper generics will reduce demand for higher-priced branded drugs, thereby lowering government spending on pharmaceuticals overall. In the long term, this policy will likely compel drug makers to increase their R&D budgets in search of new profit-making drugs, thereby boosting innovation in the sector to the ultimate benefit of patients.

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

“Essentially, the Japanese government is telling drug companies they can no longer live off old products. They’ll have to develop new drugs to stay in business,” says Glickman. As the price of generics in Japan has fallen, their penetration by volume has risen from just 20% in 2010 to 66% in 2016, with the government targeting 80% penetration by September 2020. A number of European countries, such as Greece, France, and the Netherlands, are also taking measures to promote greater adoption of generics.

In China, the government last year united pharmaceutical procurement for all the health plans it administers under one umbrella by creating a new agency, the State Medical Insurance Administration (SMIA). One of SMIA’s first acts was to announce that price would be of paramount importance in determining which drugs they include in their formulary, or list of covered medications. As a single buyer, SMIA can provide the lowest bidding drug companies access to a large and fast-growing market, albeit at margins perhaps lower than originally projected.

“Going forward, pharma companies will need to develop new classes of drugs to survive, rather than simply perfecting what’s already been discovered.”

In the US, where generics have already achieved significant penetration, health insurance companies and PBMs are increasingly balking at high prices for drugs that don’t offer substantial improvements over competing products. “Many pharma companies enjoyed high returns on investment for years because they could essentially get away with selling drugs to buyers that were highly derivative of older drugs, making them relatively inexpensive and low-risk to develop,” explains Patrick Todd, CFA, who also analyzes the health care industry. By refusing to pay for high-priced drugs where a cheaper alternative exists—even if that alternative is slightly inferior—buyers are removing a source of low-hanging fruit for Big Pharma, he says. “Going forward, pharma companies will need to develop new classes of drugs to survive, rather than simply perfecting what’s already been discovered.”


Coping Mechanisms

Pharmaceutical companies whose drugs meaningfully improve the “standard of care” in a given therapeutic area can still be immensely profitable—at least for the duration of their exclusivity periods. Yet it's becoming ever-more expensive to bring a new drug to market—approaching US$3 billion and increasing at an annual pace of 8.5%, according to a 2016 study from Tufts University. And even when highly differentiated pharmaceuticals are approved by regulators, their margins will likely be slimmer due to buyers' more-assertive posture.

R&D efficiency—especially at the early stages of the drug development process—is becoming more important as a competitive differentiator in this tougher market, says Todd. “In pharma-speak, firms that can create a rich phase-1 pipeline of novel mechanisms of action stand the best chance of maintaining high levels of profitability going forward.”

“I’m as interested in the drugs a company decides to kill—and what they’re learning from those decisions—as I am in the drugs in the pipeline that are showing promise.”

Some firms are deciding to abandon the development of otherwise-promising drug candidates, fearing they won’t be differentiated enough for governments and other buyers to include in their formularies. Sanofi, for example, announced in February 2019 that it would cease work on 25 projects in the research stage and 13 in the drug development stage. Instead, the French drug maker will shift its focus to areas where it believes it is more likely to advance the standard of care. “These days, I’m as interested in the drugs a company decides to kill—and what they’re learning from those decisions—as I am in the drugs in the pipeline that are showing promise,” says Glickman.

Other companies are using Real-World Evidence (RWE) to evaluate the efficacy of their pharmaceuticals already on the market. By conducting these studies, drug companies hope to convince buyers that their high prices, or even increased prices, are justified. While evidence of efficacy has been gathered for decades through long-term medical studies, the ability to track patient health via wearable devices, availability of digitized health records, and advances in data analytics have made it much more cost-effective to obtain.

Yet there’s an important exception. Pharmaceutical companies may be able to retain the upper hand in negotiating the price of a new drug when the current version of that drug dominates a therapeutic space and has a good reputation among doctors and patients. If the new version of the drug is additionally supported by a large marketing budget, drug makers could generate sufficient demand that buyers would be convinced to cough up, even when less-expensive alternatives are available.

As a case in point, Todd and Glickman cite Humira, an immunosuppressive drug developed by US pharmaceutical company AbbVie. Humira, used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease, among other ailments, is a clear leader in its therapeutic areas, and has been the world’s best-selling drug since 2013. AbbVie is in the process of replacing Humira with two new drugs: Skyrizi, which has already been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and a yet-to-be-named drug currently under review. Both successors stand a good chance of generating high profits, say the analysts, even though they will be little-differentiated from similar drugs launched recently by other drug makers.

Anticipating high patient demand, many buyers have been faster to add Skyrizi to their formularies than rival drugs launched earlier. The other successor drug is also likely to gain quick acceptance from buyers, he says. “AbbVie’s commercialization prowess is among the best in the industry, and their marketing budget for these drugs will be sizeable. Patients will be asking their doctors for them, and doctors will be asking their suppliers for them, so buyers will most likely succumb to the demand,” says Glickman. Despite this, Glickman and Todd predict that the new commercial realities will probably force AbbVie to lower their price points. With drug pricing under the microscope, the rules of the game have clearly changed.


Deputy Director of Research Timothy Kubarych, CFA and Analysts David Glickman, CFA and Patrick Todd, CFA contributed research and viewpoints to this piece.


1“Non-pharma peers” refers to non-pharmaceutical companies in the S&P 500 at the time of the study, which the US Government Accountability Office uses as a comparison group.

2Data from the HOLT database, accessed 07/19/2019


The “Fundamental Thinking” series presents the perspectives of Harding Loevner’s analysts on a range of investment topics, highlighting our fundamental research and providing insight into how we approach quality growth investing. For more detailed information regarding particular investment strategies, please visit our website, Any statements made by employees of Harding Loevner are solely their own and do not necessarily express or relate to the views or opinions of Harding Loevner.

Any discussion of specific securities is not a recommendation to purchase or sell a particular security. Non-performance based criteria have been used to select the securities identified. It should not be assumed that investment in the securities identified has been or will be profitable. To request a complete list of holdings for the past year, please contact Harding Loevner.

There is no guarantee that any investment strategy will meet its objective. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

© 2020 Harding Loevner

Fundamental Thinking


Get some "Fundamental Thinking" in your Inbox

Selling software as a service instead of a product has been a boon for enterprise software companies. But will their growth translate to high profits?

Many pharmaceutical companies are shifting away from large acquisitions, instead opting to buy smaller firms with riskier, earlier-stage drug candidates. Others are experimenting with new strategies altogether.

To regain market share lost to nimble competitors, established footwear and apparel brands are taking steps to accelerate design, production, and sales.

You are using an old version of Internet Explorer. It may not display all features of this website. For the best experience, please update your browser.

The information on this website is issued by Trust Company (RE Services) Limited (ABN 45 003 278 831; AFSL 235150) as Responsible Entity of, and issuer of units in, the Harding Loevner Emerging Markets Equity Fund ARSN 604 215 296 (“Fund”), and approved by Harding Loevner LP (“Harding Loevner”), as the Investment Manager of the Fund. Harding Loevner is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in respect of the financial services it provides to wholesale clients, and is not licensed to provide financial services to retail clients, in Australia. Harding Loevner is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America under US laws, which differ from Australian laws.

The information on this website is provided for general information purposes only, and is not investment advice or research, nor is it to be construed as solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any financial product . Accordingly, reliance should not be placed on this website as the basis for making an investment or other decision. A product disclosure statement (PDS) issued by the Responsible Entity is available for the Fund. You should obtain and consider the PDS, and related materials, and consult your professional advisers before making any investment decision.

Statements of fact on this website have been obtained from and are based upon sources that the Responsible Entity and Harding Loevner believe to be reliable. Neither the Responsible Entity nor Harding Loevner gives any representation or warranty as to the reliability or accuracy of the information contained on this website. All opinions and estimates included on this website constitute judgements of the Responsible Entity and Harding Loevner as at the date of this website and are subject to change without notice.

I am an Australian wholesale client or a New Zealand eligible investor and agree to the terms above and wish to proceed.

Click "Continue" to visit the general pages of the adviser to the Funds, Harding Loevner LP.
Click "Continue" to visit the pages for Harding Loevner Funds, Inc., a family of mutual funds for US investors.

Harding Loevner is not responsible for the content, accuracy, or timeliness and does not make any warranties, expressed or implied, with regard to the information obtained from other websites. These links are provided for your convenience and for navigational purposes only. They should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any securities. It should not be assumed that investment in the securities identified has been or will be profitable.

By clicking on the "I Agree" button, you acknowledge that you have read and understood this disclaimer and wish to proceed.

Terms & Conditions

Please confirm that you have read and understand the following terms of use of this website.

You are about to access the pages of Harding Loevner Funds plc, an Irish umbrella type open-ended investment company (the "Company"), which contains information about the Company and its sub-funds (each a "Fund"). These pages are for informational purposes only. It is not investment advice, nor is it intended to be relied on as a forecast or research and does not constitute an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell shares in any Fund. Access to and the information contained in these pages are restricted to persons who are residents of jurisdictions in which the distribution of the information herein is permitted. Please consult your professional advisers if you have questions about a particular investment or are unsure of the laws and regulations applicable to you.

Investment in any Fund may only be made in accordance with the terms of the relevant offering documents, and subject to the laws and regulations applicable in which the offering documents are distributed. Please further note that not all Funds are available for distribution in all or the same jurisdictions. No information regarding the offering of shares of the Funds is intended for, nor will offers or sales of such shares generally be made to, residents of the United States of America, its territories or possessions. In particular, neither the Funds nor any shares are or will be registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, or otherwise in the U.S. and may not, except in a transaction which does not violate U.S. securities laws, be directly or indirectly offered or sold in the U.S. or to any U.S. persons.

By clicking on the "I Agree" button below, you acknowledge that you have read and understood this disclaimer and wish to proceed to these pages.