Trump or Clinton? Doesn't matter, if you're Pfizer

Trump and Clinton

Which presidential candidate will best serve Big Pharma’s interests? Pfizer chief Ian Read has thought about it--and he honestly can’t figure it out.

Read can’t “at this moment distinguish between the policies that Donald Trump may support or those that Hillary Clinton may support,” he said at last week’s Sanford Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference, as quoted by The Intercept.

Fair point, the publication notes. Both Trump and Clinton have endorsed the idea of allowing Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices--one that drugmakers don’t much like. But both presidential hopefuls have also backed efforts the healthcare industry supports; Clinton, for one, put her weight behind legislation that extended the data exclusivity period for biologics, making it harder for copycats to bring their products to market.

Survey

Survey: The Critical Role of Innovation in Launching Successful OTC Products

This research aims to understand the importance of product innovation and dose forms in driving new product design and development, consumer engagement and purchase interest for Over-the-Counter medicines. The first 50 qualified respondents will receive a $5 Amazon gift card. Take the survey now.

What Read is more concerned with, though, is which party will take the reins in Congress, with Republican leaders traditionally coming out as more protective of drug company profits. “I’m sort of more focused really on understanding where the House control is going to be and where the Senate control is going to be,” Read said.

No surprise there. Last September, Read told Evercore ISI analyst Mark Schoenebaum that Clinton's slate of new proposals for cracking down on drug-pricing weren't likely to pass muster in Congress.

And keeping an eye on Congress is nothing new for Read, who for years had his sights set on closing a tax inversion deal. “You'd rather do it in a Congress where you do know who are setting the rules and what the rules are," he said last October.

Of course, pulling the trigger pre-election season didn’t end up helping the pharma giant pull off such a deal. After striking a $160 billion-dollar pact with Allergan--only to see it shot down by the U.S. Treasury--the Pfizer skipper said at the Bernstein conference that he’s done with tax inversions.

Megamergers, though, are another story. “If you believe you can reorganize your research into productive smaller units, there is a logic to consolidation of the industry by taking out duplicative expenses,” especially if the two companies can squeeze out some serious savings, Read said, as quoted by Bloomberg.

- get more from The Intercept

Special Report: The most influential people in biopharma today - 2016 - Hillary Clinton, et al.

Related Articles:
Clinton targets pharma's 'predatory' pricing with new campaign ad featuring Valeant
Trump crosses party lines to back Medicare drug-price negotiation
Pfizer CEO sees no real future for Clinton's drug-pricing proposals
Hillary Clinton plan to curb drug prices puts the screws to drugmakers and insurers
Pfizer's done with tax inversions, but megamergers? Bring 'em on, CEO says
Pfizer blows past sales forecasts, thanks to overachievers Prevnar, Ibrance

Read more on

Suggested Articles

AstraZeneca has had high hopes for its Imfinzi-tremelimumab pairing. But after a high-profile miss last year, the combo has struck out again.

Already knocked by the FDA four times this year, Dr. Reddy’s now has a fifth Form 483 to dwell on. This time it’s at a plant with a history of faults.

Kinase inhibitors to treat cancer have driven nearly $100 billion in deals since 2010, a trend that's likely to grow, SVB Leerink analysts predict.