Accessing necessary prescription medications would be straightforward and affordable for everyone. Unfortunately, the reality is often far from this ideal, with many patients needing help to afford the medicines they need to manage their health conditions. While big pharma does offer assistance programs to help alleviate the financial burden for patients, many individuals still need to take advantage of these resources. So, why is this the case?

In the labyrinthine landscape of the healthcare industry, where multiple players jostle for supremacy, few battles have been as intense and protracted as those between pharmaceutical companies and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). This clash of titans isn’t merely a skirmish over market share or profit margins; it’s a struggle for control over the intricate web of drug pricing, distribution, and access. As the dust settles, it becomes increasingly evident that pharmaceutical CEOs are determined to rid themselves of PBMs, and here’s why.

In recent years, congressional hearings have often featured intense questioning of pharmaceutical company CEOs regarding the high costs of prescription drugs. These hearings allow policymakers to express their concerns about rising drug prices and hold pharmaceutical executives accountable for their pricing practices. However, despite the scrutiny and public outcry, these hearings have had limited impact on lowering drug prices. In this blog post, we’ll explore why this is the case.

The pharma industry is vital in healthcare, contributing significantly to medical advancements and improved patient outcomes. However, the pricing strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies have become a topic of intense scrutiny and debate. The gap between the cost of producing drugs and their market prices has raised questions about the ethics and sustainability of the current pricing model.

The quest for the next blockbuster drug is a high-stakes game in the pharma industry. Two main paths lead to this coveted prize: internal R&D, the detailed but potentially rewarding journey of developing drugs from scratch, and acquisitions, the quicker but pricier route of buying into existing biotechs with promising pipelines. Which is the smarter bet? The answer, like most things in life, is that it depends.