Sandoz CEO on navigating tariffs, "distorted" U.S. drug market
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Photo illustration: Axios Visuals. Photo: Pascal Mora/Bloomberg via Getty Images
As big drug companies line up to announce new U.S. jobs and plants in the face of Trump tariff threats, generics giant Sandoz is sending a different message.
The big picture: CEO Richard Saynor is telling the Trump administration it should use carrots, not sticks, with generic drug makers that account for more than 90% of U.S. prescriptions but that compete on price and volume — to a point where, as he puts it, antibiotics sell for less than a packet of M&Ms.
Sandoz makes about 1,300 generic and biosimilar products, some 150 of which are sold in the U.S. With 2024 annual sales of $10.4 billion, it's part of a cohort of generic drug giants that also includes Teva, Sun Pharma and Viatris.
- Notably, none of its drugs are made in the United States, a situation the generic drug trade group Association for Accessible Medicines says could be remedied with steps like patent reforms and streamlined Food and Drug Administration approvals.
Saynor spoke to Axios about how his message is landing — and the volatility of navigating a second Trump term. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Could tariffs erode your profits enough that you'd pull drugs from the U.S. market?
"The tariffs that we see at the moment, we can absorb. We will manage. If it's a 200% tariff, again, we will think about what we do. The challenge I have is we have relatively few choices. You either say, 'Well, fine, our first primary duty is making sure patients get medicines. Secondly, how do we least make the market sustainable?'
- "If I can't put pricing up through the PBMs or through our customers, then we wouldn't supply the product."
- He saw reason for optimism in last week's joint U.S.-EU statement that appeared to largely exempt EU generics from duties, adding Sandoz was still seeking clarification.
How do you navigate the uncertainty from the tariff threat? What do you tell your board?
"I see more positives than negatives to be brutally honest. If you take a step back, why is this happening? Why is the administration challenging pharma? Because ultimately, [Trump] wants affordable access of high-quality medicines for U.S. patients. I want the same at the end of the day.
- "The challenge really is about the environment in the U.S. that the administration has inherited that is unattractive and unsustainable for generics and biosimilars. Clearly from the originator point of view, it's high-priced and with numerous barriers to entry for competition. So in a sense, I think in many ways, what they are doing is a symptom of the problem."
What are you telling the Trump administration and how are they responding?
"Start with the patent landscape: Every drug we bring to the U.S. market, we end up having to litigate, and you see [brand-name drugmakers] using ever more complex blocking tactics. We're in the process of suing Amgen for $3 billion because somehow they've convinced a U.S. court to grant them a 30-year patent on a drug like [the multibillion-dollar biologic] Enbrel. I think that's wrong."
- "And then you look at the payer framework and the reimbursement framework, and a huge disconnect."
- An appeals court previously ruled in Amgen's favor on the validity of its Enbrel patents.
- In an email to Axios, Amgen said: "The courts carefully reviewed these Enbrel patents, found them valid in lengthy opinions, and enjoined Sandoz from infringement. Sandoz presented its case and lost and now is blaming the courts. Contrary to its claims, these patents do not provide a '30-year monopoly' — they have a duration of 17 years, consistent with U.S. patent law at the time."
- A White House official said the administration has been pursuing "a nuanced and multi-faceted approach" to reshoring manufacturing that's been "considerate of the economics of various industries in question," adding any discussion about specifics around pharmaceuticals is speculative.
Big brand-name manufacturers are committing huge investments in U.S. manufacturing and jobs. You're not. Why?
"There are very clear choices that people need to make to make sure things like antibiotics are sustainable for generations. For us to build a new antibiotic facility would be $2 billion to $3 billion over five years in a market where I'm currently selling it for less than a packet of M&M's, how am I going to convince a board to give me that money?"
How could the administration make the generic business more sustainable?
"If you take a drug like ... Humira, it was the single-biggest patent [to go off market] in the U.S., I think roughly $16 billion. Today the U.S. government still buys the originator product for Medicaid. So it's not even encouraging a similar entry to create competition, to break down pricing."
- "Patients aren't benefiting. Taxpayers clearly aren't benefiting, and the market is distorted."
