[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].''

                          ____________________