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.

Free Daily Newsletter

Like this story? Subscribe to FiercePharma!

Biopharma is a fast-growing world where big ideas come along daily. Our subscribers rely on FiercePharma as their must-read source for the latest news, analysis and data on drugs and the companies that make them. Sign up today to get pharma news and updates delivered to your inbox and read on the go.

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