Merck-Sanofi Vaccineor is it Sanofi -Merck Vaccines

[Anonymous]

Central question is do these contracts attempt to monopolize? Answer: yes.

Why else would the Sanofi-Merck contracts require market share use concentration metrics, across multiple vaccines and specific mention of exclusion of competitive product's use. And for whose benefit? It certainly is not the patients.

Of course, Merck is going to defend their legitimate use. But if Microsoft could go down, so too could Merck.

 

[Anonymous]

Central question is do these contracts attempt to monopolize? Answer: yes.

Why else would the Sanofi-Merck contracts require market share use concentration metrics, across multiple vaccines and specific mention of exclusion of competitive product's use. And for whose benefit? It certainly is not the patients.

Of course, Merck is going to defend their legitimate use. But if Microsoft could go down, so too could Merck.

A customer can use the competition but won't receive steep discounts. By contracting, they are saying they will use our products, and not their products. They don't have to sign on the line. Not to sound like a homer but, why would anyone use Cervarix on their patients, and/or their family members?

 

[Anonymous]

A customer can use the competition but won't receive steep discounts. By contracting, they are saying they will use our products, and not their products. They don't have to sign on the line. Not to sound like a homer but, why would anyone use Cervarix on their patients, and/or their family members?

It does not matter which drug is better. It's the process of bundling or clustering them together which is illegal. If it's one drug and you sell a doctor's group 100,000 units at a discount, that is perfectly legal. The bundling along with another company, that is a open and shut case. I am shocked upper management would do something that stupid.

 

[Anonymous]

A customer can use the competition but won't receive steep discounts. By contracting, they are saying they will use our products, and not their products. They don't have to sign on the line. Not to sound like a homer but, why would anyone use Cervarix on their patients, and/or their family members?

"A customer can use the competition but won't receive steep discounts. By contracting, they are saying they will use our products, and not their products."

Bingo!

See Sherman Antitrust Act.

Explicit and express mention of exclusivity of a competitive product's name is collusion and an attempt to monopoly and is a restraint of competitive trade. The "discount" sweetens the deal to cartel.

Can't wait to see Ken get deposed like Bill Gates.

 

[Anonymous]

Merck's bundled discount agreement for preferential use of solely Merck's portfolio of vaccines is one fine example of putting patients first, no matter what other offerings have to offer individual patient needs. It is how we do business at Merck. It's about us and our products 100% of the usage time.

Starving hospitals don't have to take the discount for mandatory vaccine offerings. It's not like a gun is at their head. I mean, they could always pay more elsewhere and go out of business, right? Hospitals have a choice.

 

[Anonymous]

it's not about right or wrong. it's about legal or illegal. This is illegal. It could screw up the patent timelines. Teva (the vultures they are) will take this to court not for money. It will be to make our drugs generic quicker because of unfair advantage.

 

[Anonymous]

"A customer can use the competition but won't receive steep discounts. By contracting, they are saying they will use our products, and not their products."

Bingo!

See Sherman Antitrust Act.

Explicit and express mention of exclusivity of a competitive product's name is collusion and an attempt to monopoly and is a restraint of competitive trade. The "discount" sweetens the deal to cartel.

Can't wait to see Ken get deposed like Bill Gates.

But wait- they can use the other products, as long as it is a minor percentage, small enough to be insignificant.

 

[Anonymous]

But wait- they can use the other products, as long as it is a minor percentage, small enough to be insignificant.

So market share power concentration to corner and control the market is the objective of the contract?

Highly illegal. Big Oil busted up over this. And oil is a highly homogenous product.

 

[Anonymous]

These contracts maybe bad public policy, but dang good for Merck business. Only shame is that patients don't get to share in the contracted cost savings as billed out WAC, plus.

 

[Anonymous]

These contracts maybe bad public policy, but dang good for Merck business. Only shame is that patients don't get to share in the contracted cost savings as billed out WAC, plus.

Many have private insurance so their co-pay is not affected by acquisition cost.

 

[Anonymous]

We're not going to solve this on this site - let the lawyers manage it! Having negotiated extensively with Merck lawyers to bring new programs to customers, I can assure you that they are INCREADBLY conservative! As such, I find it highly unlikely that the contracts we have for Merck products are illegal....and I believe the prevailing law here is the Robinson Patman act and the use of discount safe harbors - market share based discounts are legal and the typical threshold for market share to achieve max discounts in the industry is 80%, which is what is in our contracts.

 

[Anonymous]

We're not going to solve this on this site - let the lawyers manage it! Having negotiated extensively with Merck lawyers to bring new programs to customers, I can assure you that they are INCREADBLY conservative! As such, I find it highly unlikely that the contracts we have for Merck products are illegal....and I believe the prevailing law here is the Robinson Patman act and the use of discount safe harbors - market share based discounts are legal and the typical threshold for market share to achieve max discounts in the industry is 80%, which is what is in our contracts.

Yep. Those Merck lawyers sure are real conservative. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-merck-settlements-idUSBRE91D0R520130214

Tell that to Bill Gates. He's had conservative lawyers too.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep. Those Merck lawyers sure are real conservative. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-merck-settlements-idUSBRE91D0R520130214

Tell that to Bill Gates. He's had conservative lawyers too.

apples and oranges...the link you sent was SEC disclosure related and I am talking about commercial/transactional practices with customers.

Are you a Novartis rep who cannot sell Menveo and blaming on contracts? Or a GSK rep who can't sell Cervarix or Rotarix and blaming it on contracts?

 

[Anonymous]

apples and oranges...the link you sent was SEC disclosure related and I am talking about commercial/transactional practices with customers.

Are you a Novartis rep who cannot sell Menveo and blaming on contracts? Or a GSK rep who can't sell Cervarix or Rotarix and blaming it on contracts?

Contracting is not selling. Merck is the sellout!

http://www.infowars.com/pfizer-and-...obama-administration-on-health-care-overhaul/

 

[Anonymous]

Merck employees gave 82 percent of PAC contributions to Obama, followed by 77 percent of Bristol-Myers employees. Merck ceo Ken Frazier, by the way, donated to Obama, but not Romney.

How you like Barry Soerto now? And you can even keep your health plan, and job - not!