Health Care and Industry Overview and Challenges

  • Ronald P. Evens

Drug and biological product development is a global, massive, complex enterprise that entails health care systems, disease knowledge, drug knowledge, research experiences (basic and clinical research with many disciplines, technologies, and processes), personnel/professional affairs, business and marketing practices, public relations, legal and regulatory issues, and global business, cultural, and medical factors. This chapter is intended to provide some background context for product development regarding applicable general health care issues, a description of the industry and key statistics, the organization of a pharmaceutical company, and drug and biological product development challenges. Thus, a framework is provided for the following 11 chapters that will discuss all the people, processes, systems, and outcomes for drug and biological development applicable in the United States and in Europe as well.


Venture Capital Chief Executive Officer Product Approval Review Time Product Candidate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cowan C, Catlin A., Smith C, Sensenig A. National Health Expenditures, 2002. Health Care Financing Review 2004; 25(Summer, #4):143–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous. Program Information on Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other Programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Department of Health and Human Services. June 2002, 1–18.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anonymous. Health, United States, 2004. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vander Walde L, Choi K, Higgins J. Health Care Industry Market Update. Pharmaceuticals. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Department of Health and Human Services. January 2003, 1–52.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anonymous. Health Care in America. Trends in Utilization. Centers for Disease Control. Department of Health Human Services. 2002, 1–90.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lethbridge-Cejka M, Schiller JS, Bernard IL. Summary of Health Statistics for U.S. Adults; National Health Interview Survey for 2002. USDHHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center Health Statistics, July 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anonymous. Surveillance for morbidity and mortality among older adults—U.S. (1995–96). 1999;48(S508):7–25.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anonymous. Chronic Disease Overview. Centers for Disease Control. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. US DHHS. 2004, 1–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anonymous. The Value of Investment in Health Care. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association. 2002, 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tufts CSDD. Outlook 2005;1–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tufts CSDD. Outlook 2004;1–8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tufts CSDD. Outlook 2003;1–5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tufts CSDD Outlook 2002;1–5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tufts CSDD Outlook 2001;1–5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anonymous. Profile pharmaceutical industry 2004, Focus on innovation. PhRMA, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anonymous. PhRMA. Industry profile 2003. Prescription medicines 25 years ago and today: changing trends, enduring needs. 1–81.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gray N. Our 6th annual report of the world's top 50 pharma companies. Pharmaceutical Executive 2005;25(5):83–94.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Humphreys A. Mayer R. 11th annual report, World's best-selling medicines. Med Ad News 2005;24(5):1, 24–40.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    15th annual report top 50 pharmaceutical companies. Med Ad News 2003;22(9):4–19.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ernst & Young. The economic contributions of the biotechnology industry to the US economy. May, 2000, Biotechnology Industry Organization.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ernst & Young. Resurgence: The Americas perspective. 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamberti MJ (Ed). State of the Clinical Trials Industry, 5th Ed. Thomson, CenterWatch. 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lahteenmaki R, Lawrence S. Public biotechnology 2004—the numbers. Nature Biotechnology 2005;23(6):663–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tufts CSDD. Backgrounder: a methodology for counting costs for pharmaceutical R&D. Recent News. November 1, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tufts CSDD. Total cost to develop a new prescription drug, including cost of post-approval research, is $897 million. Recent News. May 13, 2003.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dickson M, Gagnon JP. Key factors in the rising cost of new drug discovery and development. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004; 3(5):417–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    PhRMA. 2004 Survey. New medicines in development. Biotechnology. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC, 2005, 1–44.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    From pipeline to market 2004. Areas of interest. R&D Directions 2004;10(6):8–18.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    King J. Advances in medicine. 100 great investigational drugs. R&D Directions 2004;10(3):31–51.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ernst & Young. Progressions. Global Pharmaceutical Report. 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garaud J-J. The Most Diversified Development Pipeline, Innovation, Focus, Productivity. R&D Directions 2004 Drug Development Summit, How to Build and Maintain a Winning Pipeline. Feb. 8–11, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Anonymous. Report to the nation 2003. Improving public health through human drugs. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tufts CSDD. Postmarketing studies becoming essential to new drug development in the U.S. CSDD. Recent News. July 6, 2004.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Getz KA, de Bruin A. Speed demons of drug development. Pharmaceutical Executive 2000;20(7):78–84.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goldberg M, Davenport B, Mortellito T. The big squeeze. Sales forces are still growing, says a new survey. Pharmaceutical Executive 2004;24(1):40–6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guy P. Rising to the productivity challenge. A strategic framework for bipharma. Boston Consulting Group. July 2004.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lawyer P, Kirstein A, Yabuki H, Gjaja M, Kush D. High science: a best-practice formula for driving innovation. In Vivo The Business & Medicine Report 2004;22(4):1–12.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Engel S, King J. Biotech innovation. Pipeline gaps. Can biotech fill them? R&D Directions 2004;10(7):42–56.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Booth B, Zemmell R. Prospects for productivity. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3(5):451–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    The pipeline problem. The pipeline solution. R&D Directions 2004;10(5):42–54.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rawlins MD. Cutting the cost of drug development. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3(4):360–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cohen CM. A path for improved pharmaceutical productivity. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2(9):751–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    R&D business. Mostly growth for big pharma in 2003. R&D Directions 2004;10(3):14–15.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Preziosi P. Science, pharmacoeconomics and ethics in drug R&D: a sustainable future scenario? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3(6):521–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Balekdjian D, Russo M. Managed care update: show us the value. Pharmaceutical Executive special report. September, 2003.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tollman P, Guy P, Altshuler J, Flanagan A, Steiner M. A revolution in R&D. How genomics and genetics are transforming the biopharmaceutical industry. Boston Consulting Group, November, 2001.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    R&D Directions 2004 Drug Development Summit, How to Build and Maintain a Winning Pipeline. Feb. 8–11, 2004.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Edwards MG, Murray F, Yu R. Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology and pharma. Nature Biotechnology 2003;21(6):618–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Alzheimers Association, accessed June 2004 at
  50. 50.
    Arthritis Foundation, accessed June 2004 at
  51. 51.
    National Cancer Institute, accessed June 2004 at www.nci.
  52. 52.
    American Heart Association, accessed June 2005 at
  53. 53.
    National Institutes of Mental Health, accessed June 2005 at
  54. 54.
    American Diabetes Association, accessed June 2005 at
  55. 55.
    National Headache Foundation, accessed Junes 2005 at
  56. 56.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation, accessed June 2005 at
  57. 57.
    Engel S, King J. From Pipeline to market 2004. R&D Directions Suppl. 2004;10(6):35–74.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Personal Communications & Experiences, Amgen 1989–2002.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    R&D Directions, Summit on Product Development, February 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald P. Evens
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FloridaFL

Personalised recommendations