Challenges to achieving commercial success of new products |
|
Impact |
The successful launch of a new pharmaceutical product involves substantial investment in sales and marketing activities, launch stocks and other items. The commercial success of our new medicines is of particular importance to us in order to replace lost sales following patent expiry. We may ultimately be unable to achieve commercial success for any number of reasons. These include difficulties in manufacturing sufficient quantities of the product candidate for development or commercialisation in a timely manner, the impact of price control measures imposed by governments and healthcare authorities, the outcome of negotiations with third party payers, erosion of IP rights, including infringement by third parties and failure to show a differentiated product profile. As a result, we cannot be certain that compounds currently under development will achieve success, and our ability to accurately assess, prior to launch, the eventual efficacy or safety of a new product once in broader clinical use can only be based on data available at that time, which is inherently limited due to relatively short periods of product testing and relatively small clinical study patient samples. The commercialisation of biologics is often more complex than for small molecule pharmaceutical products, primarily due to differences in the mode of administration, technical aspects of the product and rapidly changing distribution and reimbursement environments. |
|
If a new product does not succeed as anticipated or its rate of sales growth is slower than anticipated, there is a risk that we may be unable to fully recoup the costs incurred in launching it, which could materially adversely affect our business or results of operations. Due to the complexity of the commercialisation process for biologics, the methods of distributing and marketing biologics could materially adversely impact our revenues from the sales of products, such as Synagis and FluMist/Fluenz. |
Illegal trade in our products |
|
Impact |
Illegal trade covers the theft, illegal diversion and counterfeiting of our products. Illegal trade in pharmaceutical products is estimated to exceed $75 billion per year and is generally considered by the industry, non-governmental organisations and governmental authorities to be increasing. We suffer a commensurate financial exposure to illegal trade and there is also a risk to public health. Regulators and the public expect us to secure the integrity of our supply chain and to co-operate actively in the reduction of illegal trade in AstraZeneca products, through surveillance, investigation and legal action against others engaged in illegal trade. |
|
Public loss of confidence in the integrity of pharmaceutical products as a result of counterfeiting could materially adversely affect our reputation and financial performance. In addition, undue or misplaced concern about the issue may induce some patients to stop taking their medicines, with consequential risks to their health. There is also a direct financial loss where counterfeit medicines replace sales of genuine products and where genuine products are recalled following discovery of counterfeit, stolen and/or illegally traded products in an effort to regain control of the integrity of the supply chain. |
Developing our business in Emerging Markets |
|
Impact |
The development of our business in Emerging Markets is a critical factor in determining our future ability to sustain or increase our global product revenues. This poses various challenges including: more volatile economic conditions; competition from multinational and local companies with existing market presence; the need to identify correctly and to leverage appropriate opportunities for sales and marketing; poor IP protection; inadequate protection against crime (including counterfeiting, corruption and fraud); the need to impose developed market compliance standards; the need to meet a more diverse range of national regulatory, clinical and manufacturing requirements; inadvertent breaches of local and international law; not being able to recruit appropriately skilled and experienced personnel; identification of the most effective sales channels and route to market; and interventions by national governments or regulators restricting access to market and/or introducing adverse price controls. |
|
The failure to exploit potential opportunities appropriately in Emerging Markets may materially adversely affect our reputation, business or results of operations. |
Expiry or loss of, or limitations on, IP rights |
|
Impact |
Pharmaceutical products are only protected from being copied during the limited period of protection under patent rights and/or related IP rights such as Regulatory Data Protection or orphan drug status. Expiry or loss of these rights typically leads to the immediate launch of generic copies of the product in the country where the rights have expired or been lost. See the Patent Expiries section on page 198, which contains a table of certain patent expiry dates for our key marketed products. Additionally, the expiry or loss of patents covering other innovator companies' products may also lead to increased competition for our own, still-patented, products in the same product class due to the availability of generic products in that product class. Further, there may be increased pricing pressure on our still-patented products as a result of the lower prices of generic entrants. |
|
Products under patent protection or within the period of Regulatory Data Protection typically generate significantly higher revenues than those not protected by such rights. Our revenues, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected upon expiry or early loss of our IP rights, due to generic entrants into the market for the applicable product. Additionally, the loss of patent rights covering major products of other pharmaceutical companies may materially adversely affect the growth of our still-patented products in the same product class in that market. |
Pressures resulting from generic competition |
|
Impact |
Our products compete not only with other products approved for the same condition, marketed by research-based pharmaceutical companies, but also with generic drugs marketed by generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. These competitors may invest more of their resources into the marketing of their products than we do depending on the relative priority of these competitor products within their company's portfolio. Generic versions of products are often sold at lower prices than branded products as the manufacturer does not have to recoup the significant cost of R&D investment and market development. The majority of our patented products, including Nexium, Crestor and Seroquel XR, are subject to price pressures as a result of competition from generic copies of these products and from generic forms of other drugs in the same product class (for example, generic forms of Losec/Prilosec and Lipitor, and generic forms of Seroquel IR). As well as facing generic competition upon expiry or loss of IP rights, we also face the risk that generic drug manufacturers seek to market generic versions of our products prior to expiries of our patents and/or the Regulatory Exclusivity periods. For example, we are currently facing challenges in the US from numerous generic drug manufacturers regarding our patents for Nexium and Pulmicort, two of our key products. Generic manufacturers may also take advantage of the failure of certain countries to properly enforce Regulatory Data Protection and may launch generics during this protected period. This is a particular risk in some Emerging Markets where appropriate patent protection may be difficult to obtain or enforce. |
|
If challenges to our patents by generic drug manufacturers succeed and generic products are launched, or generic products are launched 'at risk' on the expectation that challenges to our IP will be successful, this may materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In 2013, US sales for Nexium, Crestor and Seroquel XR were $2,123 million (2012: $2,272 million), $2,912 million (2012: $3,164 million), and $743 illion (2012: $811 million), respectively. Furthermore, if limitations on the availability, scope or enforceability of patent protection are implemented in jurisdictions in which we operate, generic manufacturers in these countries may be increasingly able to introduce competing products to the market earlier than they would have been able to, had more robust patent or Regulatory Data Protection been available. |
Effects of patent litigation in respect of IP rights |
|
Impact |
Any of the IP rights protecting our products may be asserted or challenged in IP litigation initiated against or by external parties. Such IP rights may also be the subject of validity challenges in patent offices. We expect our most valuable products to receive the greater number of challenges. Despite our efforts to establish and defend robust patent protection for our products, we may not succeed in protecting our patents from such litigation or other challenges. Where we assert our IP rights and allege infringement, we bear the risk that courts may decide that third parties do not infringe our IP rights. This may result in AstraZeneca losing exclusivity and/or erosion of revenues. Non-infringement defences are typically filed by third parties in response to patent infringement lawsuits including in so-called 505(b)(2) cases in the US. Details of 505(b)(2) actions can be found in Note 25 to the Financial Statements from page 176. Where we assert our IP rights but are ultimately unsuccessful, third parties may seek damages, alleging, for example, that they have been inappropriately restrained from entering the market. In such cases, we bear the risk that we incur liabilities to those third parties. We also bear the risk that we may be found to infringe patents owned or licensed exclusively by third parties, including research-based and generic pharmaceutical companies and individuals. Infringement accusations may implicate, for example, our manufacturing processes, product intermediates or use of research tools. Details of significant infringement claims against us by third parties enforcing IP rights can be found in Note 25 to the Financial Statements from page 176. |
|
If we are not successful in maintaining exclusive rights to market one or more of our major products, particularly in the US where we achieve our highest revenue, our revenue and margins could be materially adversely affected. If we are ultimately unsuccessful in patent litigation, we may incur liabilities to third parties for damages incurred after enforcing our IP rights. Managing or litigating infringement disputes over so-called 'freedom to operate' can be costly. We may be subject to injunctions against our products or processes and be liable for damages or royalties. We may need to obtain costly licences. These risks may be greater in relation to biologics and vaccines, where patent infringement claims may relate to discovery or research tools, and manufacturing methods and/or biological materials. While we seek to manage such risks by, for example, acquiring licences, foregoing certain activities or uses, or modifying processes to avoid infringement claims and permit commercialisation of our products, such steps can entail significant cost and there is no guarantee that they will be successful. |
Price controls and reductions |
|
Impact |
Most of our key markets have experienced the implementation of various cost control or reimbursement mechanisms in respect of pharmaceutical products. For example, in the US, realised prices are being depressed through restrictive reimbursement policies and cost control tools such as restricted lists and formularies, which employ 'generic first' strategies and require physicians to obtain prior approval for the use of a branded medicine where a generic alternative exists. These mechanisms can be used by payers to limit the use of branded products and put pressure on manufacturers to reduce net prices. Many of these mechanisms shift a greater proportion of the cost of medicines to the patient via out-of-pocket payments at the pharmacy counter. The patient out-of-pocket spend is generally in the form of a co-payment or, in some cases, a co-insurance, which is designed, principally, to encourage patients to use generic medicines. A summary of the principal aspects of price regulation and how price pressures are affecting our business in our most important markets is set out in the Pricing pressure section from page 15 and these economic pressures are also further discussed below in the following risk factor. |
|
Due to these pricing pressures, there can be no certainty that we will be able to charge prices for a product that, in a particular country or in the aggregate, enable us to earn an adequate return on our product investment. These pressures, including the increasingly restrictive reimbursement policies to which we are subject and the continued potential of new legislation expanding the scope of permitted commercial importation of medicines into the US, could materially adversely affect our business or results of operations. We expect that these pressures on pricing will continue, and may increase. |
Economic, regulatory and political pressures |
|
Impact |
We face continued economic, regulatory and political pressures to limit or reduce the cost of our products. In 2010, the US passed the Affordable Care Act, a comprehensive health reform package with provisions taking effect between 2010 and 2018. The law expands insurance coverage, implements delivery system reforms and places a renewed focus on cost and quality. In terms of specific provisions impacting our industry, the law mandates higher rebates and discounts on branded drugs for certain Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as an industry-wide excise fee. Implementation of several health system delivery reforms included in the law has commenced and will continue until 2018. The Affordable Care Act expands the patient population eligible for Medicaid and will provide new insurance coverage for individuals through state-operated and federal-operated health insurance exchanges from 2014. The pharmaceutical industry could be adversely impacted by such shifts if the health insurance exchanges do not offer a prescription drug benefit that is as robust as benefits historically provided by large employers. We anticipate further government intervention in the US in connection with the recent initiative to contain federal spending. For more information see the Regulatory requirements and Pricing pressure sections from page 14 and 15, respectively. In the EU, efforts by the European Commission to reduce inconsistencies and to improve standards in the disparate national pricing and reimbursement systems have met with little immediate success as Member States guard their right to make healthcare budget decisions. The industry continues to be exposed in Europe to a range of disparate pricing systems, ad hoc cost-containment measures and reference pricing mechanisms, which impact prices. This pressure is likely to continue for several years as the Member States try to re-balance their sovereign debt levels. Concurrently, many markets are adopting the use of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to provide a rigorous evaluation of the clinical efficacy of a product, at, or post, launch. HTA evaluations are also increasingly being used to assess the clinical as well as cost-effectiveness of products in a particular health system. This comes as payers and policymakers attempt to drive increased efficiencies in the use and choice of pharmaceutical products. Further information regarding these pressures is contained in the Regulatory requirements and Pricing pressure sections from page 14 and page 15, respectively. |
|
It is not possible to accurately estimate the financial impact of the potential consequences resulting from the Affordable Care Act or related legislative changes when taken together with the number of other market-related and industry-related factors that can also result in similar impacts. While the overall reduction in our profit before tax for the year due to higher minimum Medicaid rebates on prescription drugs, discounts on branded pharmaceutical sales to Medicare Part D beneficiaries and an industry-wide excise fee was $933 million, this reflects only the limited number of known, quantifiable and isolatable effects of these legislative developments. Other potential indirect or associated consequences of these legislative developments, which continue to evolve and which cannot be estimated, could have similar impacts. These include broader changes in access to, or eligibility for, coverage under Medicare, Medicaid or similar governmental programmes. These continued disparities in pricing systems could lead to marked price differentials between markets, which, by way of the implementation of existing or new reference pricing mechanisms, increases the pricing pressure affecting the industry. The importation of pharmaceutical products from countries where prices are low due to government price controls, or other market dynamics, to countries where prices for those products are higher, is already prevalent and may increase. In particular, as discussed in the Pricing pressure section on page 15, eurozone crisis countries such as Greece and Portugal have introduced particularly tough measures to lower healthcare spending, including mandatory discounts, clawbacks and price referencing rules, which could have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations. |
Abbreviated approval processes for biosimilars |
|
Impact |
While no application for a biosimilar has been made in relation to an AstraZeneca biologic, various regulatory authorities are implementing or considering abbreviated approval processes for biosimilars that would compete with patented biologics. For example, in 2010, the US enacted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act within the Affordable Care Act, which contains general directives for biosimilar applications. The FDA issued draft guidance in February 2012 on implementing an abbreviated biosimilar approval pathway. However, significant questions remain, including standards for designation of interchangeability. In 2012, the FDA also implemented user fee programmes to support biosimilar product review and policy development. In Europe, the EMA published final guidelines on similar biological medicinal products containing MAbs and in May, the first MAb biosimilar application was made. Notably, a number of jurisdictions have adopted either the EMA guidelines or those recently set forth by the WHO to enable biosimilars to enter the market after discrete periods of data exclusivity. |
|
The extent to which biosimilars would be differentiated from patented biologics on price is unclear. However, due to their complex nature, it is uncertain whether biosimilars would have the same impact on patented biologics that generic products have had on patented small molecule products. In addition, it is uncertain when any such abbreviated approval processes may be fully realised, particularly for more complex protein molecules such as MAbs. Any such processes may materially adversely affect the future commercial prospects for patented biologics, such as the ones that we produce. |
Increasing implementation and enforcement of more stringent anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation |
|
Impact |
There is an increasing global focus on the implementation and enforcement of anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation. For example, in the UK, the Bribery Act 2010 came into force in July 2011. It has extensive extra-territorial application, implements significant changes to existing UK anti-bribery legislation and broadens the scope of statutory offences and the potential applicable penalties, including organisational liability for any bribe paid by persons or entities associated with an organisation where the organisation failed to have adequate preventative procedures in place at the time of the offence. In the US, there has been significant enforcement activity in respect of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by the SEC and DOJ against US companies and non-US companies listed in the US. We are the subject of current anti-corruption investigations and there can be no assurance that we will not, from time to time, continue to be subject to informal inquiries and formal investigations from governmental agencies. In the context of our business, governmental officials interact with us in a variety of roles that are important to our operations, such as in the capacity of a regulator, partner or healthcare payer, reimburser or prescriber, among others. Details of these matters are included in Note 25 to the Financial Statements from page 176. |
|
We devote significant resources to the considerable challenge of compliance with this legislation, including in emerging and developing markets, at considerable cost. Investigations from governmental agencies require additional resources. Despite taking significant measures to prevent breaches of applicable anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws by our personnel and associated third parties, breaches may result in the imposition of significant penalties, such as fines, the requirement to comply with monitoring or self-reporting obligations, or debarment or exclusion from government sales or reimbursement programmes, any of which could materially adversely affect our reputation, business or results of operations. |
Any expected gains from productivity initiatives are uncertain |
|
Impact |
We continue to implement various productivity initiatives and restructuring programmes with the aim of enhancing the long-term efficiency of the business. However, anticipated cost savings and other benefits from these programmes are based on estimates and the actual savings may vary significantly. In particular, these cost reduction measures are often based on current conditions and cannot always take into account any future changes to the pharmaceutical industry or our operations, including new business developments, wage or price increases. |
|
If inappropriately managed, the expected value of these initiatives could be lost through low employee engagement and hence productivity, increased absence and attrition levels, and industrial action. Our failure to successfully implement these planned cost reduction measures, either through the successful conclusion of employee relations processes (including consultation, engagement, talent management, recruitment and retention), or the possibility that these efforts do not generate the level of cost savings we anticipate, could materially adversely affect our business or results of operations. |
Failure to attract and retain key personnel and failure to successfully engage with our employees |
|
Impact |
We rely heavily on recruiting and retaining talented employees with a diverse range of skills and capabilities to meet our strategic objectives. For example, the success of our science activities is particularly dependent on our ability to attract and retain sufficient numbers of high quality researchers and development specialists. We face intense competition for well qualified individuals, as the supply of people with specific skills and significant leadership potential or in specific geographic regions may be limited. Our ability to achieve high levels of employee engagement in the workforce, and hence benefit from strong commitment and motivation, is key to the successful delivery of our business objectives. |
|
The inability to attract and retain highly skilled personnel, in particular those in key scientific and leadership positions and in our talent pools, may weaken our succession plans for critical positions in the medium term, may materially adversely affect the implementation of our strategic objectives and could ultimately impact our business or results of operations. Failure to engage effectively with our employees could lead to business disruption in our day-to-day operations, reduce levels of productivity and/or increase levels of voluntary turnover, all of which could ultimately adversely impact our business or results of operations. While we are committed to working on improving drivers of engagement, such as increasing our employees' understanding of our new strategy and our ongoing efforts to reduce organisational complexity, our efforts may be unsuccessful. |
Failure of information technology and cybercrime |
|
Impact |
We are dependent on effective IT systems. These systems support key business functions such as our R&D, manufacturing, supply chain and sales capabilities, and are an important means of safeguarding and communicating data, including critical or sensitive information, the confidentiality and integrity of which we rely on. The size and complexity of our IT systems, and those of our third party vendors (including outsource providers) with whom we contract, has significantly increased over the past decade and makes such systems potentially vulnerable to service interruptions and security breaches from attacks by malicious third parties, or from intentional or inadvertent actions by our employees or vendors. |
|
Any significant disruption to these IT systems, including breaches of data centre security or cybersecurity, or failure to integrate new and existing IT systems, could harm our reputation and materially adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. While we have invested heavily in the protection of our data and IT, we may be unable to prevent breakdowns or breaches in our systems that could adversely affect our business. Significant changes in the business footprint and the implementation of the new IT strategy including the setting up of captive offshore Global Technology Centres could lead to temporary loss of capability while the changes are being implemented. The inability to effectively back-up and restore data could lead to permanent loss of data that could result in non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations. We and our vendors could be susceptible to third party attacks on our information security systems, which attacks are of ever increasing levels of sophistication and are made by groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise, including criminal groups, 'hacktivists' and others. From time to time we experience malicious intrusions and computer viruses. |
Failure of outsourcing |
|
Impact |
We have outsourced a number of business critical operations to third party providers. This includes certain R&D processes, IT systems, HR, and finance and accounting services. |
|
A failure to successfully manage and implement the integration of IT infrastructure services provided by our outsourcing providers could create disruption, which could materially adversely affect our business or results of operations. Failure of outsource providers to deliver timely services, and to the required level of quality, and failure of outsource providers to co-operate with each other, could materially adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. In addition, such failures could adversely impact our ability to meet business targets, maintain a good reputation within the industry and with stakeholders, and result in non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations. |