Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81176
|
| Title: | 原開發藥廠因應學名藥廠競爭之經營模式調整之研究
The study on the adjustment of research-based pharmaceutical companies’ operating model against generic manufacturers’ competition |
| Authors: | 藍任堯 |
| Contributors: | 詹文男
藍任堯 |
| Keywords: | 原開發藥廠
二代健保
藥價調查
學名藥、
藥品三同
營運模式
Research-based pharmaceutical company
Drug price survey
Generic drug
Operating model
New drug pricing |
| Date: | 2014 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-02-03 12:05:22 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 全民健康保險制度在台灣開辦以來已經快二十年了，在全民都有保險、給付的範圍從基礎到複雜的醫療照護完整、合約醫療機構相當普遍、就醫的方便性等，得到大多數台灣民眾的肯定。
但全民健保這一路實施下來卻為台灣帶來的龐大國家赤字。健保局針對於每年五千餘億的健保費用其中的藥品費用(為第二大支出，占了其中的25%)多次長期進行多種的藥費及藥價管控措施，低廉的新藥核價加上每兩年的藥價調查後的藥價調降，國外藥廠除了要配合健保的藥價政策外，還需要面對醫療機構對於現有藥品再降價的要求。長久下來，藥廠利潤逐年下降影響甚劇。
其中以今年七月所要實施二代健保中「藥品三同」對於原開發藥廠藥衝擊最大。衛生署所實施的三同政策，即是針對健保給付超過15年的藥品，實施「同成分」、「同品質」、「同價格」，調整為同價格。此一政策倘若實施，原開發藥廠利潤嚴重下降，可能會導致會放棄台灣市場，民眾只剩下國產學名藥可以選擇。再者，三同政策最大的瑕疵，在於只單方面考慮健保給付的藥價，卻忽略了藥廠製藥成本，此舉明顯不顧成本不同卻硬性規定價格，明顯違反市場機制，也違反健保精神。
專利藥到期的原開發藥藥廠要如何因應以縮小品質及價格的爭端，只著眼於一昧砍藥價來填補健保財務虧損，不仔細思考同成分就一定同品質的問題而將藥品砍至同一價格的健保署藥物品質認定及給付標準。
本研究探討之研究問題包括: 1)在台灣健保逐年調降藥價的政策下藥品三同政策前，原開發藥廠在台的經營模式為何,2)在政府政策培育下的學名藥如何日益茁壯來影響專利藥到期的原開發藥廠市場活動，3)藥品三同政策實施後對專利藥到期的原開發藥廠的衝擊4)主要獲利的專利藥品皆到期的台灣武田藥品公司未來的經營模式從主要價值活動面該如何調整因應。
本研究以Afuah A.(2004)經營模式架構，先從過去健保政策下原開發藥廠的營運模式做說明，再以目前健保政策環境因素的變化，如何影響個案公司的市場行銷活動，而活動又如何影響公司的資源、定位及成本。
本研究發現「藥品三同」對台廠學名藥因具有較佳的成本競爭優勢，對原開發藥廠產生威脅，但因原料的不穩定性讓病患、處方醫師無法信任。所以原開發藥廠除了監督政府長期對學名藥廠品質加以把關、用訴訟延緩學名藥的上市外、另外一方面併購國內學名藥廠，以配合醫療院所對於低價高品質藥品的需求。最後，專利藥到期的原開發藥廠從健保政策中與學名藥廠價格競爭獲得利潤，就必須改變營運模式，首要的就是降低成本。如何從採購及製造方面有效降低成本著手，進一步調整有形、無形資產投入、人員配置培養與組織等策略資源，以及定價、市場區隔等定位修正，是原開發藥廠需要深入思考的問題。
National Health Insurance (NHI) program has been implemented in Taiwan for almost 20 years. It has earned recognition for the compulsory enrollment for all residents in Taiwan, the benefits covered from basic to complicated medical care, the prevalence of contract medical facility and the convenience of going to doctors.
NHI, however, has caused fiscal deficit for the past few years. Drug cost, among the over 500,000,000,000 NTD health insurance fee, is the second largest expenditure, which takes up 25 percent of health insurance fee. Therefore, Bureau of National Health Insurance has taken measures to manage and control drug cost and drug price multiple times for a long period. Foreign pharmaceuticals have cooperated on the low-priced pricing for new drugs and have lowered drug price after drug price evaluation every two year. However, there is still demand from medical institution for lowering drug price. The profit is therefore significantly affected in the long run.
Among the impacts, the significant one for research-based pharmaceutical companies is “three sameness of drug” in the 2nd generation NHI, which will be implemented in this coming July. This three sameness policy is to adjust those drugs which are covered by NHI for over 15 years and are of the same ingredients and quality to the same price. If this policy is put into practice, the profit of research-based pharmaceutical companies would plunge, which may result in their leave of Taiwan market. The domestic generic drugs, as a result, would be the only choice for the general public. Moreover, the major flaw of this three sameness policy is that it merely considers the drug price NHI covers, not the costs of pharmaceutical companies. That the drug price is set inflexibly without taking costs difference into consideration is against not only market mechanism but also the essence of NHI.
The questions this study aimed to investigate were: 1. What have been the operating models of research-based pharmaceutical companies in Taiwan in the circumstances of drug price drop year by year before “three sameness policy”? 2. How have the government-sponsored generic drugs affected the market activities of drug patent expiration of research-based pharmaceutical companies? 3. What have been the impacts of “three sameness policy” on drug patent expiration of research-based pharmaceutical companies? 4. How should the operating model of Takeda Pharmaceuticals Taiwan, Ltd. adapt to, from the aspect of primary value activities, the condition of drug patent expiration of its profitable drugs?
Based on the framework of operating model by Afuah A.(2004), this study began with the operating model of research-based pharmaceutical companies in former NHI policy. It then elaborated on how changes of the present NHI policy have influenced the marketing activities of the case company and how these activities have influenced the company’s resources, position and costs.
This study reveals that “three sameness policies” is favorable for Taiwanese generic manufacturers for their costs competition. However, the instability of raw materials could not gain the trust of patients and doctors. Therefore, in order to cooperate on the demand for low-price and high-quality drug, researched-based pharmaceutical companies supervise the government’s check on the quality of generic manufacturers, employ litigation to suspend the launch of generic drugs or merge domestic generic manufacturers. If research-based pharmaceutical companies with drug patent expiration would like to compete with generic manufacturers and make a profit in NHI policy, they would have to change their operating model. How to reduce costs of purchase and manufacture and go further to adjust the input of physical and intangible assets, strengthen professional training of personnel and organization and modify strategies for pricing and market segmentation are the main issues worth considering. |
| Reference: | 中文部份
1王復中著, (2012). 二代健保工作重點說明
2.王慧卿, (2010). 藥品專利期失效前後之經濟效益比較研究: 以質子幫浦抑制劑及鈣離子阻斷劑產品為例
3.林文泰, (2009). 全民健保藥價調整下的廠商因應策略- 以某原開發藥廠為例
4.李宜真, (2012). 藥品產業之產品上市及生命週期管理之行銷策略
5.張資奇, (2007). 生技專業藥廠營運模式之研究- 以個案公司為例
6.許家鳳, (2010). 專利藥到期後之策略探討：以美商在台子公司為例
7.陳光冠, (2013). 藥業經營者面對二代健保實施的因應措施
8.黃政焜, (2010). 國際專利藥藥廠與國內學名藥藥廠在台灣競爭模式之分析研究
9.健保局著, (2011-2012). 全民健康保險簡介
10.健保局著, (2012-2013). 全民健康保險簡介
11.電子化策略與經營模式，Allan Afuah、Christopher L.Tucci著，呂執中編譯，麥格羅.希爾出版，2001年9月出版
12.廖建亨, (2013). 跨國製藥廠的創新營銷模式
13.蘇祈睿, (2012). 台灣製藥廠商選擇商業模式之因素
14.鄭小滿, (2011). 輝瑞大藥廠與武田藥品工業經營模式分析
15.羅淑慧, (2008). 醫藥產業回顧與展望,財團法人生物技術開發中心
16.ITIS 生物技術開發中心 產業報告文獻
17.STPI 科技產業資訊室 市場報導/生物科技
英文部分
1.Afuah A., 1998, ‘Innovation Management: Strategies Implementation, and
Profits,’ Oxford University Press, New York.
2.Afuah, A., 1995, ‘Strategic adoption of innovation: The case of reduced instruction set computer technology,’ Massachusetts Institute of Technology,55(10): 3236.
3.Afuah, A., 2001, ‘Dynamic boundaries of the firm: Are firms better off being vertically integrated in the face of a technological change,’ Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1211.
4.Afuah, A., 2004, Business Models: A Strategic Management Approach, N. Y.: McGraw-Hill.
5.Aguilar-Saven, R. S., 2004, ‘Business process modeling: Review and framework,’ International Journal of Production Economics, 90(2):129-149.
6.Alvarez, S. A., and Barney, J. B., 2002, ‘Resource-based theory and the entrepreneurial firm,’ In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, and D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset: 89-105. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
7.Amabile, T. M. 1983, The social psychology of creativity, New York: Springer-Verlag.
8. Amabile, T. M. 1997, ‘Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do,’ California Management Review, 40: 39-58.
9.Amabile, T., 1988, ‘A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.’ In: B.M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10,JAI Press.
10.Amit, R. and C. Zott, 2000, ‘Value Drivers of e-Commerce Business Models, INSEAD Working Paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau.
11.Ansari, A, N. Economides and A. Ghosht., 1994, ‘Competitive positioning in markets with no uniform preferences,’ Marketing Science. 13(3): 248-284.
12.Arora, A., A. Fosfuri and A. Gambardella, 2001, ‘Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy,’ Industrial and Corporate Change,10(2): 419.
13.Bandura, A.1999, ‘Social cognitive theory: An argentic perspective,’ Asian journal of social Psychology, 2(1): 21- 41.
14.Barney, J. B., 1991, ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, ‘Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
15.Barney, J. B., 2002, Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage: 2nd ed., 314-315. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.Baron R. A., 2004, ‘The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s basic “why” questions,’ Journal of Business Venturing,19(2): 221-239.
17.Besen, S. M. and G. Saloner, 1989, ‘The Economics of Telecommunications Standards,’ in R. W. and CRANDall and K. Flamm (eds.), Changing the Rules: Technological Change, international Competition, and Regulation in Communication, 177-220, Brookings, Washington.
18.Birely, S., 1986, ‘The role of new firms: births, deaths, and job generation,’ Strategic Management Journal, 7: 361–376.
19.Bluedorn, A. C., 2000, Time and organizational culture Handbook of organizational culture and climate, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.Boulding, W. and M. Christen, 2003, ‘Sustainable Pioneering Advantage? Profit Implications of Market Entry Order,’ Marketing Science, 22(3): 371-392.
21.Brunnermeier, S. and S. Martin, 1999, ‘Interoperability cost analysis of the U.S. automobile supply chain,’ NIST Planning Report 99-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.56. Brynjolfsson, E., 1996, ‘Network externalities in microcomputer software: An econometric analysis of the spreadsheet market,’ Management Science, 42:1601628-1648.
22.David P. A., 1985, ‘Technical choice, innovation and economic growth,’ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
23.Duchesneau, D.A. and Gartner, W.B., 1990,‘A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging industry,’Journal of Business Venturing.
24.Evans, P. and T. Wurster, 1997, ‘Strategy and the new economics of information,’ Harvard Business Review, 75(5): 71-82.
25.Forster, J., H. Grant, C. L. Idson, and E. T. Higgins, 2001, ‘Effects of success and failure on motivational strength: Regulatory focus as moderator,’Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37: 253–260.
26.Foster, R., 1986, Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage, New York: Summit.
27.Glynn, M. A., 1996, ‘Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation,’ Academy of Management Review,21(4): 1081 - 1112.
28.John, G., A. M. Weiss, and S. Dutta, 1999, ‘Marketing in technology-intensive markets: Toward a conceptual framework,’ Journal of Marketing, 63: 78-91.
29.Johnston Jr., R. E. and D. Bate, 2003, The Power of Strategy Innovation: A New Way of Linking Creativity and Strategic Planning to Discover Great Business Opportunities, New York, N. Y.: AMACOM.
30.Michael E. Porter 2008. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard business review.
31.Klepper, S., 1997, ‘Industry life cycles,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
101932139 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101932139 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [經營管理碩士學程EMBA] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 213901.pdf | 5496Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 748 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
