[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 151 (Wednesday, November 20, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11719-S11722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A REMARKABLE AMERICAN: ROBERT INGRAM
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as my father always said, there are two
types of people, talkers and doers. Anyone who knows Robert Ingram will
agree with me that he is a ``doer extraordinaire.'' Bob, of course, is
the distinguished Chief Operating Officer and President, Pharmaceutical
Operations of GlaxoSmithKline, GSK.
A few weeks ago, October 15, Bob announced his intention to retire at
year's end from his daily responsibilities as the second-highest
executive officer at GSK, the world's premier pharmaceutical company.
Through the years, GSK and more importantly, countless people around
the world have benefitted immeasurably from Bob Ingram's compassion,
energy, vision and intelligence.
In recent years, many politicians have engaged in a virtual sport,
unjustifiably criticizing pharmaceutical companies and the senior
executives who lead them. Thankfully, the American people have seen
though many of these attacks for what they are, political expediency.
Americans are sophisticated enough to know that politicians do not
develop life-saving and life-improving medications. Rather, it is the
research-based pharmaceutical and biotech industries that invest
billions of dollars each year to develop products that both extend our
lives and improve the quality of life for billions of citizens around
the world.
Bob Ingram has served as a beacon, consistently, respectfully and
thoughtfully explaining the public health tradeoffs involved in
implementing proposed new pharmaceutical regulations. It would be
impossible to overstate his enormous contribution to reasoned discourse
on this critical subject.
Bob Ingram has long understood that the ultimate victims of an
inefficient and unproductive industry are the patients who will lack a
safe and effective pharmaceutical therapy for the ailment that afflicts
them not the pharmaceutical companies or their stockholders as some
would have you believe.
Compassion requires that one stand up in support of what is proper.
The measure of a leader is that he is willing to do so when that view
is not popular. Bob Ingram has worked tirelessly as such a leader.
Fortunately, Bob's retirement from his day to day responsibilities at
GSK will not mean that he is retiring from his role as an effective and
outspoken advocate for the industry. Softening the blow somewhat is the
knowledge that Bob will continue to fight for the well-being of
patients as GSK's representative to the board of the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturer's Association.
Bob, his dear wife Jeannie, and GSK employees have long been involved
in promoting service to others. Together with GSK's Chief Executive
Officer, JP Garnier, Bob Ingram has done much to ensure that GSK serves
as a global leader, launching effective medical programs that benefit
millions of people throughout the world. The Orange Card discount
program is a prime example of GSK's responsiveness and industry
leadership in the United States.
Through GSK's Global Community Partnership programs, the Global
Alliance to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis, a 20-year initiative to
contribute hundreds of millions of doses of medication to rid the world
of LF, the world's most disfiguring and disabling
[[Page S11720]]
disease, contributions of HIV/AIDS and anti-malarial medications as
well as numerous other global, national, state and local initiatives,
GSK employees have contributed greatly to the improvement of the human
condition and human spirit.
Bob's life is a testament to the importance of setting the right
priorities. He is a success professionally because his actions have
demonstrated an extraordinary sense of personal responsibility to the
improvement of the lives of others less fortunate.
Raised in rural Illinois, Bob Ingram is highly respected as one of
North Carolina's leading citizens. He has devoted countless thousands
of hours to worthy civic, community and professional organizations. For
example, Bob led GSK's effort to provide a founders grant to the Emily
Krzyzewski Durham family community center, he supported the Durham hill
learning center and has helped numerous other local civic organizations
around North Carolina.
The list of worthy national causes Bob has generously helped is so
extensive that I will not attempt to recite them all. Bob's role as
Chair of the CEO Roundtable on Cancer, his Presidency of the American
Cancer Society Foundation, and his leadership in the fight to find a
cure for cystic fibrosis, CF, merit particular note.
These past several years, Dot Helms and I have considered ourselves
fortunate to call Bob and Jeannie Ingram our friends.
I am grateful for the positive contributions Bob has made during his
tenure at GSK. His advice and support have been invaluable. His
dedication to ensuring that people everywhere can benefit from advanced
pharmaceutical therapies and his commitment to innovative programs that
expand access to pharmaceuticals will continue to pay dividends to
literally billions of people throughout the world for many years to
come. Bob has achieved a remarkable, and I hope unfinished, legacy.
I ask unanimous consent that a transcript of Bob Ingram's comments at
the National Press Club on July 18, 2002 and an article entitled ``A
Retirement that hurts RTP'' from the October 16, 2002 edition of the
Raleigh News and Observer be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Comments by Bob Ingram, National Press Club, Washington, DC, July 18,
2002
Thank you, Mr. (John) Aubuchon, for your kind introduction
and for providing me with an opportunity to address this
important audience.
I'd also like to thank all of you for joining us this
afternoon. I know you've heard a lot of criticism about the
pharmaceutical industry and drug pricing. Today, I'd like to
set the record straight.
It's hard to predict where the current debate over health
care will eventually end up, or what the consequences will
be. And I'm inclined not to predict such things unless I end
up like Lord Kelvin, an English Scientist and president of
the Royal Society, who has gone down in history for saying:
``Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are
impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax. I have not the
smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than
ballooning.'' Now there's a man of conviction, but you
certainly wouldn't want him betting for you at the racetrack.
That said, we Americans have a lot riding on the outcome of
society's debate over how to control our healthcare costs--
nothing less than the future health of ourselves and our
children.
A key question in this current debate is: How much should
we be spending on prescription drugs? Drug costs are
skyrocketing, and payors are asking, how much is too much?
Unfortunately, in focusing the debate almost solely on cost,
it's easy to lose sight of the patient. Payors increasingly
demand less expensive medicines, but it's easy to forget that
a tiny pill often represents a scientific miracle in its
ability to save lives and improve quality of life. As
patients, we assume the research intensive pharmaceutical
industry will find better treatments for cancer, and
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's--but we don't recognize that
paying for that research also means paying at the pharmacy
counter. Do we spend more on pharmaceuticals today than we
did years ago? Yes. In fact, our critics would say that we
are spending too much on branded drugs.
But I would argue that rather than spending less, we should
be investing more as a society on pharmaceuticals, because
medicines actually represent the best value in healthcare
today--for patients, and for payors.
Let's look at this issue of cost a little more carefully.
Between 1996 and 2000, national health spending for
medicines increased 115 percent while overall health care
costs increased 25 percent. Seems outrageous, doesn't it?
But let's put this in perspective. Total health care
increased $260 billion during that time to a total of $1.3
trillion. Spending on pharmaceuticals was less than a 10th of
that--$122 billion. In fact, of every dollar the government
spends on health care, only 9 cents is spent on medicines--
compared to 55 cents for doctors and hospitals. And that 9
cents includes the services of your pharmacist, plus current
R&D efforts in our science labs. Unfortunately, people often
confuse increased spending on drugs with increased prices for
medicines.
The truth is that rising pressure on payor budgets is due
to increased volume--more people using more and better
medicines--not price increases on medicines. Pharmaceutical
sales increased 19 percent in 2001 over 2000, but over 14% of
that increase was volume growth. Less than 5 percent was due
to price. So what accounts for the growth in volume? In great
part, the very success of medicines in improving health and
quality of life.
Those of you who are 45 or 50 . . . back at the turn of the
last century, you'd be at the end of your life. But today,
the majority of us can expect to blow out the candles on our
80th birthday cake. And we are part of a rapidly expanding
group. Thirty-five million Americans are now over age 65; in
just 30 years, that number will double to 70 million. Of
course, if you're like me, you're tempted to ask why, if
medicine has made so much progress in the past 50 years, how
come I felt so much better 50 years ago.
Well the truth is, we Americans aren't just living longer;
we are generally living healthier lives. Twenty years ago, in
1982, the average age of an elderly person entering a nursing
home was 65. Today that age is 83. Many of you have elderly
parents, and are perhaps caregivers. How important is it to
you, and to your parents, that a few small pills can keep
your loved ones living independently in the homes they've
raised their families in, for as long as possible? But
there's a cost to longer life, better health, and maintained
independence--and somebody has to pay.
Industry critics say we can't afford this increased
spending on pharmaceuticals. But what we really can't afford
is the far greater cost of catastrophic care for heart
disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and other illnesses--costs
that will grow substantially as the population grows.
Let's consider diabetes.
Right now, we are facing an epidemic of Type II diabetes.
Over 16 million Americans have Type II--the 5th leading cause
of deaths by disease in the U.S. Another 16 million are
estimated to have pre-diabetes, but most are not taking steps
to avoid full onset.
We genuinely hope people will adopt preventive lifestyles
to avoid the need for medicines. But those patients who do
suffer with this chronic and progressive disease have a lot
to look forward to Fatigue. Foot ulcers and gangrene leading
to amputation. Blindness. Kidney failure. Heart disease.
Stroke. Premature death. That's frightening for patients. But
what will really frighten those responsible for paying for
treatment is the alarming rise in the number of patients--and
therefore costs--expected over the next 50 years. By then, at
current rates, the number of patients with Type II diabetes
will increase by 200 percent--skyrocketing our country's
costs for dealing with Type II diabetes.
Today, we pay $100 billion a year to cover the human and
economic cost to society from just this one disease--a huge
proportion of which is spend for hospital care. When you
consider the aging population, the increasing incidence of
diabetes, and the huge cost associated with it, unless we
come up with better answers, we'll break the bank with just
one disease. That's what we can't afford.
But real hope lies in pharmaceuticals. Before 1995, doctors
didn't have many options available. They relied primarily on
insulin injections or sulfonylureas, as well as prevention.
Just 7 years later, there are four new classes of oral
diabetes medications on the market that help slow the
progression of the disease, and prevent or delay the onset of
its more serious and costly complications. Most importantly,
these medicines ease patient suffering. And spending on these
valuable medicines is only a fraction of the cost of fighting
diabetes--just 2 percent in 1997. Can we afford to pay for
new and better prescription medicines that fight diabetes? I
would argue we can't afford not to. We have proven time and
again that paying for medicines is the most cost effective
way of fighting disease.
Take AIDS. Remember how, in the early 80's, full-blown AIDS
was a death sentence for patients? Many died within two years
of diagnosis. By 1996, AIDS had dropped out of the top 10
leading causes of death in the United States. Why?
In 1984, scientists at Burroughs Wellcome brought new hope
to patients with AZT--the first treatment to fight HIV/AIDS.
In the first 16 months after AZT came to market, hospital
inpatient care dropped by nearly half (43%). Today, with a
score of medicines on the market, if patients take their
combination therapy as prescribed, they don' die of AIDS.
Critics say these medicines cost a lot of money. And they do.
Combination therapy--using several AIDS medicines at once to
fight the disease--costs approximately $11,000 a year per
patient. But before such therapies were available, an AIDS
patient could account for $100,000 a year in hospital bills--
until they died from the disease.
[[Page S11721]]
Are we spending more today on AIDS medicines? Yes, but we are
saving millions in the overall cost of medical care. And
people with AIDS are living--and they are productive members
of their communities. Instead of planning for their funerals,
they are planning for the rest of their lives.
Then there's stroke.
Breakthrough clot-busting medicines can stop some strokes
before permanent brain damage occurs. The end result not only
saves lives, but also saves dollars--$1,700 in drug therapy
versus over $6,000 per patient in treatment costs. More
promising yet, increased drug use may prevent some strokes
entirely. A study by the Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research says that greater use of a blood-thinning drug would
prevent 40,000 strokes a year, saving $600 million per year.
Yet stroke remains the 3rd leading cause of death for senior
citizens and the first leading cause of disability. Without
future breakthroughs from the research intensive
pharmaceutical industry, we face huge future human and cost
implications from this disease.
Are we spending more money on drugs to prevent and treat
strokes? Absolutely. Is it worth it? Absolutely--both in
terms of lowered costs and, more importantly, reduced patient
suffering. Are we continuing to search for new and better
treatment for stroke? Absolutely. But stroke is notoriously
one of the most challenging types of pharmaceutical research
and development to undertake. The incentives have to be there
to justify the huge investment required in such high risk
research. But if you're an insurance company, or an employer,
or a federal or state government budget officer, you see the
money spent on medicines going up and up, and a ballooning
senior population in the offing, and you think, we've got to
get this spending under control.
Your first response? Find any way you can to cut the
pharmacy budget. You can do that a number of ways--price
caps, supplementary rebates, formularies, for example--
but the result can be unexpected.
Years ago, the state of New Hampshire learned this lesson
the hard way. The government capped prescription drug
spending, and saved an average $57 a year on drugs for
schizophrenia patients. But the law of unintended
consequences kicked in, and they added $1,500 a year in costs
for visits to mental-health clinics and emergency rooms.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's what my mother called penny-
wise and pound-foolish. Pharmaceuticals are actually the best
value in health care, and rather than spending less, we
should be investing more on medicines. Penny-wise squeezing
of pharmaceutical costs only results in pound-foolish
expansion of costs for more expensive health care procedures.
Do we spend more on pharmaceuticals today than we did years
ago? Yes. But we can't afford to forget that the money paid
for medicines today fuels investment in R&D for the medicines
of tomorrow.
You're all familiar with the floppy disks or CDs you use to
load software on your computer. You also probably know that
these disks cost less than a dollar to buy at your local
office supply store. Why then does your software often cost
hundreds of dollars? Well, for the same reason that a little
white pill costs so much at the pharmacy. Just as in the case
of new medicines that improve your health, hundreds of
highly-skilled people took many years to invent and develop
that new software for your computer. You're not just buying a
bit of plastic. You're buying creativity, and years of
research and development that went into developing the
software for your computer--and the new medicines that
improve your health.
In our case that's an investment of $800 million, 10-12
years of R&D, and the failure of 5,000 to 10,000 compounds
along the way--just to bring one new innovative medicine to
market. But it's government and academia that discover drugs,
right? Not exactly. Of the top 100 most commonly used
medicines in the U.S., 93 were discovered and/or developed by
research-based pharmaceutical companies. Certainly,
government and academia play a vital role in scientific
research. They push the frontiers of science, and while we do
that in pharmaceutical research companies too, we have the
practical expertise to link what we know about disease and
the human body to develop medicines that improve human
health. For example, the public sector discovered the
presence of beta adrenergic receptors in the heart and blood
vessels. But it took the pharmaceutical research industry to
convert that scientific knowledge into new medicines that
treat heart disease, high blood pressure and stroke--the
beta-blockers that are keeping a number of us, and our
parents, alive today.
GSK alone invests $4 billion a year in research and
development. The hope for patients who are or will suffer
from diabetes, AIDS, Parkinson's, stroke, Alzheimer's, Cystic
Fibrosis and countless other diseases lies in the powerhouse
of innovative pharmaceutical industry research--and in the
partnerships between industry, government and academia.
Recently many of you have read or seen news items about an
insurance industry-sponsored study claiming that all this
research effort doesn't result in better drugs, but only
drugs of minimal value--so-called me-too drugs. Breakthrough
medicines are fantastic--when you find them--but they are
rare, and very hard to achieve. Believe me, no one sets out
to discover or develop a medicine that has no advantage over
current therapy.
I sometimes say working in a pharmaceutical company is a
lot like playing golf: It costs a lot and takes a long time
to play. You will likely never hit a hole in one. And you
always feel like you're playing with a handicap. But you
can't escape the fact that science is slow and incremental.
More often than not, after years of testing, you learn that
your medicine isn't a breakthrough; but it may offer fewer
side effects, work a little faster, or come in a pill that is
easier for patients to swallow. These incremental advances--
while not breakthroughs--can and do provide real value for
patients. Sometimes we find new uses for old drugs. Take
Coreg--a GSK treatment for heart failure. Coreg is a beta-
blocker, a class of drugs which at one time was restricted to
treating hypertension because it was thought to cause heart
failure in patients. But clinical trials showed Coreg
actually benefited patients with congestive heart failure.
These trials were so successful that the only ethical thing
to do was to stop the trial and give the medicine to all
patients, even those who were on placebo. If you work for an
insurance company, you might view Coreg as a me-too drug. If
you're a patient, you'd likely view it as a lifesaver. Our
critics say that we should concentrate only on new chemicals,
and forget such incremental gains. But consider this. Merck
and GSK both have AIDS vaccines in development. One may work,
neither may work, or both may work.
But right now we don't know which could be the miracle
vaccine that makes it first to market and which would be the
follower--a so-called me-too. Tell me. Which of these
research programs should we kill for the purpose of
controlling costs? Personally, for those at risk of AIDS, I
hope both programs are a success, and that physicians and
patients have a choice of two AIDS vaccines competing with
one another in the marketplace. Of course, when we do come up
with a new idea and patent it, our critics claim that we
abuse the patient system for the purpose of keeping generic
drugs off the market. Let me set the record straight. There
is clearly a place for generics in our health care system.
I have no problem competing with generics in the
marketplace--but only after our patent expires. There's a
great deal of confusion about patents in the public mind, and
that's understandable, because it's complex subject. First
off, no innovator pharmaceutical company realizes a full 20
years of patent life on a medicine granted under the law. By
the time that medicine makes it through the regulatory
process, we only have about 11 years left on our 20 year
patent to realize a return on that investment and fund
current R&D. Other industries, by contrast, generally enjoy
18 years of patent life on their products.
Second, the Hatch Waxman Act of 1984 basically crated the
generic industry by outlining a delicate balance between the
need, on the one hand, to bring low cost copies to market
after a medicine's patent expires, and on the other hand, to
protect incentives for pharmaceutical research and
innovation. History has proven one thing--thanks to the Hatch
Waxman Act, the modern generic drug industry is healthy and
growing. In fact, generics now account for nearly half of all
prescriptions filled in the United States. Yet as part of
that delicate balance, generic drug companies were given a
special treatment unlike any other industry. They have access
to patent protected date before the patent expires.
So a generic company can copy our scientists' work, develop
their plans to manufacture their version of our medicine, and
have it ready to ship the day the patent expires. In every
other industry, a copier has to wait until the patent expires
on a technology before they can even think about planning to
copy that product. The problem is, generic companies don't
want to wait until the patents expire. They have taken to
challenging innovator patents in an attempt to declare those
patent invalid so they can come to market sooner.
In the case of our anti-depressant, Paxil, the first
generic company challenged our patents just five and a half
years into what should have been a 14-year patent term. In
the next 3 years, seven other generic companies entered the
fray.
Ladies and gentlemen, this kind of abuse of the Hatch-
Waxman Act means lots of time and money wasted on litigation,
costs that eventually get reflected in the price of
medicines. The first generic company to market often gets 6
months of exclusivity to sell their version of our product
without competition from other generics--so contesting
patents is worth it to those companies.
It's a much simpler and lower risk business strategy for
[generic companies to] hire lawyers and challenge patents in
the courts than to invest in science and final new innovative
medicines.
Speaking for GSK, I'd be willing to consider giving up the
defensive litigation provisions available to the research
intensive industry under Hatch Waxman if the generic
companies agree to drop the special provisions they have to
come to market. Current reform efforts threaten to destroy
the balance that protects innovation while enabling the
generics to operate. In letter to Senator Kennedy, Richard
Epstein, the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service
Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, said it best:
``The current regime...confess competition with confiscation
of property rights.'' It's important to remember that generic
companies do not discover new medicines yet it's the
innovative pharmaceutical research industry that is at risk.
In fact, the patient
[[Page S11722]]
with a disease that needs a better treatment is at risk as
well.
Let me close with where I started--with the idea that by
focusing strictly on costs we are focusing on the wrong
thing. Instead, we should be focusing on the patient. We need
to be able to discover, develop, and deliver a better
medicine that meets patient needs. To the degree we do that,
we succeed. To the degree we don't do that, we fail. And when
we fail, we fail patients who are suffering from disease. And
we fail the society that looks to us for better treatments. I
hope I've demonstrated that medicines offer the greatest
value for better patient health and quality of life. But we
do understand that if you can't afford your medicine, any
price is too high. And that's why we at GSK--and at a number
of other research-intensive pharmaceutical companies--are
looking for ways to improve patient access to medicines, not
only in developing countries, but here at home as well.
That's why we offer medicines to the most needy patients
through our patient assistance programs. Last year, the
innovative pharmaceutical industry helped to fill 6.5 million
prescriptions for more than 2.4 million needy patients. That
adds up to more than $1 billion worth of medicine provided
free of charge. That's also why GlaxoSmithKline led the way
in improving access to medicines for low-income seniors in
the US.
GSK's Orange Card--the first savings card for seniors in
the industry--offers low income seniors savings of 20-40% or
more on more their GSK medicines. We now have over 100,000
seniors participating in this savings program. The Together
Rx card does the same, but offers saving on more than 150
medicines from 7 different pharmaceutical companies. In less
than six weeks after availability, over 1 million patients
had requested enrollment forms for this program. Both cards
are free, and easy to obtain and use. But such programs
are only a stopgap until comprehensive Medicare reform can
pass Congress.
Of course skeptics will say that passage of real Medicare
reform is a bit like the story of the doctor who went to
heaven and met God. God granted him one question, so the
physician asked, ``Will health-care reform ever occur?'' ``I
have good news and bad news,'' God replied. ``The answer is
yes, there will be health care reform. The bad news is, it
won't be in my lifetime.'' We in the research intensive
industry hope passage of a meaningful benefit does occur, not
just in our lifetime, but in this election year.
We understand passing reform of this magnitude in an
election year can be a challenge. But we strongly favor
adding a drug benefit to Medicare, because we believe
patients should have coverage for health care--including
prescription drugs. The House has already passed a bill which
we supported. We hope that the Senate, in an election year,
would put patients first and also pass meaningful reform,
like that embodied in the tripartisan bill that Democrats,
Republicans and Independents are supporting. That bill
provides a meaningful benefit, but allows competition to take
place in the free market. That type of arrangement allows
real price competition, in the marketplace, but does not
stifle innovation and research. That's where we stand now. We
must come to grips with the cost side of the value equation
if we are to restore balance and realize the true value of
the medical innovations we have the opportunity to enjoy.
If we at GSK are ever inclined to forget the value of our
medicines, we have to look no further for a reminder than the
patients we serve today. I was astonished by an e-mail we
received from a woman who takes Advair--our newest asthma
medicine. She wrote; ``I started taking Advair approximately
August 24th. I really began feeling great--my breathing had
improved immensely. On September 11th, I was in 2 World Trade
Center when the impossible happened. I really believe that
because of this medication I was able to make my way down 59
stories through Manhattan and across the Brooklyn Bridge.
Please give my thanks to those who developed this life saving
medicine.''
This letter means a lot to me, and to all of us at GSK--
particularly our scientists who dedicate their lives to
discovering and developing new medicines like Advair.
Just yesterday, a Wall Street Journal editorial cited one
of our industry's best critics, Sen. Edward Kennedy, saying
that ``something has to be done about the `soaring cost of
prescription drugs' else the `miracle cures' promised by the
biotech revolution will remain priced `out of the reach of
ordinary Americans.' '' The editorial went on to say:
``Miracles they may be, but they don't fall from heaven. They
will be developed for a profit, or they won't be developed at
all.''
Thank you.
____
[From Newsobserver.com, Oct. 16, 2002]
A Retirement That Hurts RTP
(By David Ranii)
Research Triangle Park.--Robert Ingram, the No. 2 executive
at giant GlaxoSmithKline and the most visible pharmaceutical
industry leader in the Triangle, is retiring at the end of
this year.
Ingram, who in December turns 60, mandatory retirement age
for GSK executives, is the former chief executive officer of
London-based Glaxo Wellcome and was named chief operating
officer and president of worldwide pharmaceutical operations
after Glaxo merged with SmithKline Beecham nearly two years
ago.
David Stout, now president of the U.S. pharmaceuticals
business, will replace Ingram as head of worldwide
pharmaceuticals.
``I think Bob is one of the most outstanding pharmaceutical
executives in the United States,'' said John Plachetka, chief
executive of Durham pharmaceutical company Pozen. ``He is so
well known and well respected--not just in our industry but
in Washington.''
As the highest-ranking former Glaxo executive remaining at
GSK, Ingram's imminent retirement can be viewed as
reinforcing the complaints of some employees that what was
billed as a merger of equals has turned out to be a de facto
takeover by SmithKline Beecham. Glaxo's former chairman,
Richard Sykes, retired from GSK earlier this year. Ingram
will continue to work with the company as part-time vice
chairman and special adviser.
Ingram's retirement sets off a domino effect among senior
executives at GSK, which is based in London and has twin U.S.
headquarters in Research Triangle Park and Philadelphia.
Unlike Ingram, whose office is in RTP, Stout, 48, will move
to Philadelphia when he takes charge. Stout hails from the
Smithkline Beecham side of the business and was based in
Philadelphia before being named to his current post in
January 2001.
Ingram said he has ``a high degree of confidence in David's
ability.''
Stout's successor as head of the U.S. pharmaceuticals
business will be Christopher Viehbacher, 42, president of
pharmaceuticals in Europe, who will move from Paris to RTP.
Andre Witty, Asia Pacific senior vice president, has been
named Viehbacher's successor. Both Viehbacher and Witty were
with GSK before the merger.
After Ingram retires, six of the 14 top-tier executives at
the company, what the company calls its corporate executive
team, will have Glaxo Wellcome pedigrees, while the other
eight will share a SmithKline Beecham heritage. Ingram,
meanwhile, will continue to participate in executive team
meetings even after he retires, said GSK spokeswoman Mary
Anne Rhyne.
The chief operating officer position being vacated by
Ingram isn't being filled.
Ingram, who began his pharmaceutical career as a sales
representative, said that when he left Merck & Co. to join
Glaxo in 1990, he realized that the one downside was that
Glaxo, like many British companies, had a mandatory
retirement age of 60 for top executives. ``Time,
unfortunately, marches on, as they say,'' he said.
Ingram said that, although he doesn't have a noncompete
clause in his new arrangement with GSK, he isn't interested
in being CEO of another pharmaceutical company. ``I will say
I have been approached to do that,'' he said. ``It is
flattering.''
``There is certainly a possibility,'' he added, ``that I
might take on some nonexecutive chairmanships.''
Ingram, who is well known in political circles, also said
he has no plans to run for political office. ``I think my
wife would shoot me if I even considered it,'' he said.
Ingram has earned kudos for being an effective advocate for
GSK and the industry in Washington, and he also has developed
a relationship with President Bush and his family. At a
black-tie GOP fund-raiser held in Washington in June that
netted about $30 million, Ingram was called upon to offer the
presidential toast.
In recognition of Ingram's Washington clout, he will remain
GSK's representative on the board of the industry trade
group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers'
Association, after his retirement.
``Bob Ingram is one of the giants of the pharmaceutical
industry, and we are pleased that he will continue to play a
major role on the PhRMA Board,'' Alan Homer, the
association's president, said in a statement. ``Bob's
sensitivity and caring for the needs of others, especially
patients, is unparalleled.
Dr. Charles Sanders, a former chairman and chief executive
of the U.S. operations of what is now GSK, praised Ingram's
leadership. ``Bob has been through two mergers, first with
Burroughs Wellcome and then with SmithKline Beecham,'' said
Sanders. ``I think he has handled it very well. it is very
difficult to merge companies.''
Ingram, who lives in Durham, said he understands that some
GSK employees keep score regarding how many former Glaxo
Wellcome executives are in leadership positions compared with
their counterparts from SmithKline Beecham. But that's not
how the corporate executive team looks at things, he said.
``It is one company: GSK,'' he said. ``Our competition
isn't internal. The last time I checked, we had plenty of
competition [elsewhere].''
____________________