How many P C reps now in the US?

Quote




You'll just need to slightly adjust the format of your question to:

--How many PC Reps will be left once the actual layoff target is reached; because baby, we aren't even close to being finished !

--> Eventually PC will be structured like an oversized Speciality Sales Force.

...and that is what I heard just recently on a trip to Whitehouse Station.

If you made it this round, then your only plan should be planning to not make it through the next one !

In the meantime, watch your tracked GPS ass, since PIPs will be dished out like cheap candy during Halloween.
 




Anonymous said:
You'll just need to slightly adjust the format of your question to:

--How many PC Reps will be left once the actual layoff target is reached; because baby, we aren't even close to being finished !

--> Eventually PC will be structured like an oversized Speciality Sales Force.

...and that is what I heard just recently on a trip to Whitehouse Station.

If you made it this round, then your only plan should be planning to not make it through the next one !

In the meantime, watch your tracked GPS ass, since PIPs will be dished out like cheap candy during Halloween.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 








Anonymous said:
at one point there were 10 reps per cluster. now 3. territories changed somewhat over the years, but in general it seems around 65-75% cut in PC sales since 2008.
Click to expand...

You guys the writing has been on the wall for a long time. Merck said they are focusing on vaccines, diabetes and oncology and hep c. If you aren't in a specialty there is limited access in primary care and the drugs aren't making money for merck anymore. Merck has learned the way to make money is through specialty drugs. Listen to the business plan in a couple weeks. Eventually primary care drugs go generic and the pipeline can either be sold off or there will be no PC PIPELINE ... Get out of primary care in any pharma area
 




Anonymous said:
You guys the writing has been on the wall for a long time. Merck said they are focusing on vaccines, diabetes and oncology and hep c. If you aren't in a specialty there is limited access in primary care and the drugs aren't making money for merck anymore. Merck has learned the way to make money is through specialty drugs. Listen to the business plan in a couple weeks. Eventually primary care drugs go generic and the pipeline can either be sold off or there will be no PC PIPELINE ... Get out of primary care in any pharma area
Click to expand...

If the PD-1 drug doesn't sell well (there are several similar drugs all coming to market together), oncology will be decimated, too. They have one year post -launch to sink or swim. I'm betting half of them end up gone one year post-launch, that's if the drug ever actually gets approved at all.
 












Really the end for most branded drug is the patent expiring...too much of what we're peddling is a retread / combo of an earlier product..Oncology! that's the place...Say C A N C E R real loud and all of a sudden price issues go away..cancer, cancer, cancer, Marsha, Marsha, Marsha....this is the last gravy train pulling out of the station for pharma and it'll be a short ride soon enough (even CANCER can't cure a $$$$ drug price)---bah humbug.
 




Anonymous said:
Obamacare is the end for many branded drugs.
Click to expand...

IRS - Annual Fee on Branded Prescription Drug Manufacturers and Importers

Section 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), as amended by section 1404 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), Public Law 111-152 (124 Stat. 1029 (2010)), imposes an annual fee on each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs, to be paid not later than September 30th of each year.

ee Year
Applicable Amount
2011
$2.5 billion
2012
$2.8 billion
2013
$2.8 billion
2014
$3 billion
2015
$3 billion
2016
$3 billion
2017
$4 billion
2018
$4.1 billion
2019 and thereafter

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corpo...Prescription-Drug-Manufacturers-and-Importers
 




Anonymous said:
IRS - Annual Fee on Branded Prescription Drug Manufacturers and Importers

Section 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), as amended by section 1404 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), Public Law 111-152 (124 Stat. 1029 (2010)), imposes an annual fee on each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs, to be paid not later than September 30th of each year.

ee Year
Applicable Amount
2011
$2.5 billion
2012
$2.8 billion
2013
$2.8 billion
2014
$3 billion
2015
$3 billion
2016
$3 billion
2017
$4 billion
2018
$4.1 billion
2019 and thereafter

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corpo...Prescription-Drug-Manufacturers-and-Importers
Click to expand...

So what? I spend more than that on copter fuel and penny state fan gear!

KF
 












Anonymous said:
It's getting smaller every day. It won't end until every one of us is gone. We'll be replaced by a handful of InVentiv reps.
Click to expand...

As planned by Merck and their Big Pharma peers.

Since it was becoming ever more obvious that big pharma could not longer defend the fact that they had been selling, at twice the price in the US, many branded drugs with no substantial clinical difference than other much cheaper options, they worked to structure Obamacare to give them a glide path out of that portion of the market. See the post above regarding branded drugs and Obamacare.

Now, across the entire US market there is a common disincentive to sell branded drugs when there are alternatives. This doesn't immediately stop the sales but makes it less profitable unless they reduce the costs. You are the costs.

The plan is simply to eliminate the costs of reps selling branded drugs in this classification and let the market for those drugs go where it may. If they sell branded drugs without the costs of reps fine. if they don't Merck has plenty of rev $'s from the sales of generics.

Any rep in the US whose job is to sell branded drugs where generics are availble is toast.
 




When did you write the above? The mid eighties? Because the market for name brand v. Generics has been that way since at least that long. Are you rip van winkle and you just now woke up?
 




Anonymous said:
As planned by Merck and their Big Pharma peers.

Since it was becoming ever more obvious that big pharma could not longer defend the fact that they had been selling, at twice the price in the US, many branded drugs with no substantial clinical difference than other much cheaper options, they worked to structure Obamacare to give them a glide path out of that portion of the market. See the post above regarding branded drugs and Obamacare.

Now, across the entire US market there is a common disincentive to sell branded drugs when there are alternatives. This doesn't immediately stop the sales but makes it less profitable unless they reduce the costs. You are the costs.

The plan is simply to eliminate the costs of reps selling branded drugs in this classification and let the market for those drugs go where it may. If they sell branded drugs without the costs of reps fine. if they don't Merck has plenty of rev $'s from the sales of generics.

Any rep in the US whose job is to sell branded drugs where generics are availble is toast.
Click to expand...

A simple statement of the obvious, yes. But you can't argue with that last line.
 




Anonymous said:
As planned by Merck and their Big Pharma peers.

Since it was becoming ever more obvious that big pharma could not longer defend the fact that they had been selling, at twice the price in the US, many branded drugs with no substantial clinical difference than other much cheaper options, they worked to structure Obamacare to give them a glide path out of that portion of the market. See the post above regarding branded drugs and Obamacare.

Now, across the entire US market there is a common disincentive to sell branded drugs when there are alternatives. This doesn't immediately stop the sales but makes it less profitable unless they reduce the costs. You are the costs.

The plan is simply to eliminate the costs of reps selling branded drugs in this classification and let the market for those drugs go where it may. If they sell branded drugs without the costs of reps fine. if they don't Merck has plenty of rev $'s from the sales of generics.

Any rep in the US whose job is to sell branded drugs where generics are availble is toast.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to imply, neigh outright state the Merck stabbed us in the back for profit?
 




To answer the question....3000 Merck reps plus? hospital group + about 500 Vaccine Reps+ HIV Hep C+ whatever HSC or specialty cadre we are floating out there...TOO many...is the short answer....
 




f-er Op sure reads like a mole troll looking to fill out his slimey CI report for competitor. Pretty damn skanky to act coy and make profit here, counting how many of us were laid off and how many remain. Does it get ANY lower?
 




Anonymous said:
If the PD-1 drug doesn't sell well (there are several similar drugs all coming to market together), oncology will be decimated, too. They have one year post -launch to sink or swim. I'm betting half of them end up gone one year post-launch, that's if the drug ever actually gets approved at all.
Click to expand...

We just added a bunch of Onc KAMs, so approval is immenent. Real question is will they put more hooves on the track for Oncology any time soon. Whatis it now, like 175 or so now in Oncology?cut in half if the PD1 is a soft launch, no way will they roll with less than 100 there. safest div, (imho)
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote