Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 September 10, 2004
Toronto Biopharmaceutical Cluster
2 September 10, 2004
The Porter Diamond and Clusters
3 September 10, 2004
Assessing Toronto’s Biopharmaceutical Cluster
Clusters profiled and assessed using cluster template developed by Michael Porter’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness
Used 120 variables to measure the four elements of the Porter DiamondThis allows for comparison of competitiveness between clusters
4 September 10, 2004
Toronto’s BioPharma Cluster Study Overview
Industry OverviewOntario under performs in innovative activity and productivity
Cluster AnalysisWeak demand conditions do not contribute to an innovative climate
Opportunities for Development in Toronto’s ClusterEncourage more competition among health care providers
Revamp pricing strategyStrengthen intellectual property protection Reduce drug approval times and duplication of regulatory processes Allow for more end-consumer input and choice in system
Encourage more outsourcing by health care providers Enforce more sophisticated purchasing by health care providers/fundersImprove linkages between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs
5 September 10, 2004
Traded Industries Grouped into 41 Clusters
6 September 10, 2004
Clusters Drive Productivity and Innovation
7 September 10, 2004
Clusters Drive Productivity and Innovation in Ontario
Average WageC $ (2000)
$44,404
$30,000
$44,208
Traded Clusters Local Industries Natural Resources
Share of Employment
40%
59%
1%
Patents per 10,000 Employees(US Data)
20.48
1.38
6.40
Traded Clusters Local Industries Natural Resources
Source: Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness – Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity
Traded Clusters Local Industries Natural Resources
Share of Income
49%
49%
1%
8 September 10, 2004
Toronto ranks 8th versus leading North American jurisdictions
•Neighbouring MSAs combinedSource: Institute for Strategy – Cluster Mapping Project & Competitiveness, Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity
*
*
*
*
*
*
Top Biopharmaceutical Clusters by Employment - MSA/CMA
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Baltimore, MD
Indianapolis, IN
Montreal, QC
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point-Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
Chicago, IL
Toronto, ON
Boston-Worcester-Lawerence-Lowell-Brocktn, MA-NH
Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland-Kalamazonn-Battle Creek, MI
Philadelphia, PA-NJ
New London-Norwich-New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Danbry-Wtrbry, CT
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Orange County-CA
New York-Nassau-Suffolk, NY
Newark-Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon-Bergen-Passaic, NJ
Total Employment
9 September 10, 2004
Wages in Leading North American Biopharmaceutical Clusters Ranked by Employment Size
$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Baltimore, MD
Indianapolis, IN
Montreal, QC
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point-Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
Chicago, IL
Toronto, ON
Boston-Worcester-Lawerence-Lowell-Brocktn, MA-NH
Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland-Kalamazonn-Battle Creek, MI
Philadelphia, PA-NJ
New London-Norwich-New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Danbry-Wtrbry, CT
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Orange County-CA
New York-Nassau-Suffolk, NY
Newark-Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon-Bergen-Passaic, NJ
Average Wages $ US, PPP Adjusted
Toronto Wages Under Perform US clusters
Note: * Data is suppressed
Source: Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity
*
*
*
*
10 September 10, 2004
Toronto ranks 8th versus leading North American jurisdictions
3 Narrow Sub-clusters
8 Broad Sub-clusters
Health and Beauty Products
Containers
Biopharmaceutical Products
Surgical Instruments and Supplies
Medical Equipment
Dental Instruments and Supplies
Diagnostic Substances
Ophthalmic Goods Research Organizations
Biological Products
Patent Owners & Lessors
Source: Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity
© 2004 Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Toronto Life Sciences Cluster
Surgical Instruments and Supplies (B)
Medical Equipment (B)
Dental Instruments and Supplies (B)
Diagnostic Substances (B)
Ophthalmic Goods (B)
Containers (N)
Health and Beauty Products (N)
Biological Products (B)
Biopharmaceutical Products (N)
17th in N.A.
Research Organizations (B)
Educational Institutions
University of Toronto, York University, Ryerson
University
Cluster Organizations
(Rx&D, CGPA)
Health Providers
Specialized Services
Banking, Accounting, Legal
Specialized Risk Capital
VC Firms, Angel Networks
Patent Owners and Lessors (B)
Competitive (6-10)
Position Established (11-15)
Less Developed (16-20)
Uncompetitive (20+)
North American Leader (1-5)
© 2004 Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Boston Life Sciences Cluster
© 2004 Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Lack of specialized service providers Related and Supporting Industries
Strong science base in OntarioWeak technology transfer in Toronto
Factor Inputs
Pharma MNC’s in Toronto vs Boston Toronto: Astra Zeneca, Bayer Canada, Eli Lilly
Canada, GSK Canada, Hoffman-RocheBoston: Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Merck & Co., Novartis
and Pfizer Boston is home to 4 of the world’s top 20 biotech
companies Genzyme, Biogen, Millennium and Vertex
Toronto is home to none$2.75B revenue from Top 100 US companies
headquartered in Boston $890M revenue from FP Top 500 health care
companies in Toronto
Rivalry
Slow approval times in CanadaPrice controls in CanadaLocal hospitals constrained in innovative procurement
and research
Demand Conditions
Biopharma Cluster: Boston vs. Toronto
14 September 10, 2004
Canada Captures a Small Portion of Global Market Revenues
Source: IMS Health
Share or Pharmaceutical Sales, 2002Canada
2.6%
US53.4%
Germany6.2%
France5.3%
Italy3.7%
UK3.9%
Others 24.9%
15 September 10, 2004
Canada Lags on Drug Sales per Capita
Pharmaceutical Expenditure per capita
$386
$472
$374
$459
$227
$345
$236
$556
$487
$569
$408
$485
$330$355
$341
$674
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Canada France Germany Italy Sweden Switzerland UK US
$US
20002002
Ontario 2002 = $513
Source: Provincial Reimbursement Advisor (July 2004) and Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity analysis based on CANSIM II
16 September 10, 2004
Canada’s Trade Deficit has Narrowed in ‘03
Canada is a Net Importer of Pharmaceutical Products
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
million
Total Exports
Total Imports
Source: Industry Canada
17 September 10, 2004
Research and Development in Ontario
$479.1M spent on branded pharmaceutical research and development in 2002
A result of Bill C-22Generic companies spend an additional $250-300M per year
Canada and the US differ on the type of R&D conductedCanada trails in basic R&D
Major research initiatives:Merck Frosst Canada to establish Respiratory Imaging CentreEli Lily Canada – Cancer Care Ontario Translational Research ProgramAstraZeneca to establish research chair at McMaster University GlaxoSmithKline to create Asthma Education Centre Pfizer Canada to create Arthritis Treatment Program U of T to receive organ transplant research chair Purue Pharma Ambulatory Care Services Centre
18 September 10, 2004
US Companies Focus on Breakthrough R&D; Canadians on Clinical Trials
Source: Secor, adapted from PMPRB Annual Report 2001 and PhRMA
USACanada
100100TOTAL
29.120.9Drug regulation submissions; bio-availability studies; Phase IV clinical trials
OTHER
28.847.6Phases I-III clinical trials
13.513.6Manufacturing process R&D; preclinical trialsAPPLIED
28.617.8i.e. Synthesis and extraction, biological screeningBASIC
% SHARE OF R&DACTIVITIESTYPE OF RESEARCH
USACanada
100100TOTAL
29.120.9Drug regulation submissions; bio-availability studies; Phase IV clinical trials
OTHER
28.847.6Phases I-III clinical trials
13.513.6Manufacturing process R&D; preclinical trialsAPPLIED
28.617.8i.e. Synthesis and extraction, biological screeningBASIC
% SHARE OF R&DACTIVITIESTYPE OF RESEARCH
Comparison of Canadian and US Pharmaceutical R&D(2000)
19 September 10, 2004
Relatively Low R&D Intensity in Canada
Source: PMPRB, A Comparison of Pharmaceutical Research and Development Spending,S-0217, December 2002 * Based on a voluntary survey of R&D expenditures for Rx&D members **1.7 % of the 14 countries but 1.2 % of world R&D.
% of the 14 countries
R&D
R&D per capita
0.8%
$11
5.0% 2.6% 11.4% 1.3% 57.9% 7.7% 7.0% 0.7% 0.3% 1.7%** 0.2% 1.7%1.6%
$386 $164 $108 $73 $118 $52 $75 $25 $33 $30 $22 $17$33
A Comparison of R&D to Sales for Different Countries(2000)
10.9%
19.3%
R&D/sales 2001
Ontario
Quebec
$29
$55
R&D per capita2001
79.0%
102.5%
44.4%
35.1%28.6%
18.4% 17.3% 16.8% 16.4% 14.7%10.1% 8.3% 6.2% 5.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
Switzerland Denmark Sweden UK Belgium US Germany France Netherlands Finland Canada Norway Italy Spain
20 September 10, 2004
R&D is Increasingly Shifting to the U.S.
“…there is a process of concentration of R&D into North America. In 1999, European pharmaceutical companies spent only 59 percent of their worldwide R&D in the European Union, down from 73 percent in 1990. The United States was the main beneficiary of this shift in R&D expenditures.” (Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2004)
Source: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA)
• According to a recent Bain report, “the heart of Europe’s decline is the dramatic shift in pharmaceutical innovation from Europe to the US. While a number of reasons are mentioned above, the primary cause is that pharmaceutical innovation has ‘followed the money.” To get a return on the $1.7B currently required to bring a new drug to market, on average, pharmaceutical companies increasingly focus on the US market, which represents the largest and fastest-growing share of the global profit pool, now 62%. Pharmaceutical companies now depend on the US as their key source of returns on R&D investments.”
21 September 10, 2004
R&D Spending by Region
Quebec , 44%
Ontario , 38%
Rest of Canada , 18%
Distribution of Pharmaceutical R&D by Province, 2001
Source: Rx&D
22 September 10, 2004
Pharmaceutical R&D Expenditures in Ontario
$71.5
$106.7 $114.5
$156.6$170.2
$213.3$236.2
$268.1$286.1 $296.6
$329.7
$381.4$396.2
$427.2
$479.1
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Millions of Dollars
Notes: Excludes capital R&D and allowable depreciation expendituresSource: PMPRB
Investment in R&D Continues to Grow, but…
CAGR 1990-2002 = 13.5%
23 September 10, 2004
R&D Investment in US is Growing Faster
CAGR 1990-2001 = 32.5%
24 September 10, 2004
US Produces More Break-through R&DL e a d in g C o u n tr ie s in b io p h a rm a c e u t ic a l p
C o u n try B io p h a rm aIn v e n t io n s
B io p h a rm a p a te n ts p e r y e a r /m ill io n h a b ita n ts
U n ite d S ta te s 1 1 ,4 5 8 3 .5S w itz e r la n d 2 7 2 3 .1C a n a d a 7 0 2 1 .9D e n m a rk 1 8 3 2 .9S w e d e n 2 5 2 2 .4Is ra e l 2 3 2 3 .5A u s tr ia 1 3 7 1 .4B e lg iu m 1 7 7 1 .4U K 7 8 1 1 .1N e th e r la n d s 2 4 0 1 .3A u s tra lia 2 7 0 1 .2G e rm a n y 8 4 1 0 .9F ra n c e 6 6 8 0 .9J a p a n 1 ,2 1 1 0 .8Ita ly 2 8 1 0 .4W o r ld (n ) 1 6 ,5 1 0 0 .2S o u rc e : C o m p ile d b y S c ie n c e -M e tr ix f ro m U S P T O d a ta
Leading Countries in biopharmaceutical patents, 1990-2001
25 September 10, 2004
Toronto Suffers from Unsophisticated Demand
Turning to each factor…
Strength* for Toronto
Neutral* for Toronto
Significant* Weakness for Toronto
* Vs Boston
Lags Boston
26 September 10, 2004
Toronto Has Impressive Factors Conditions
Good general factors: Positive geographic location to largest market, lower input costs relative to US, largest population in Canada, andaccess to Canada’s most significant VC market
Good specialized factors: High production of medically-trained professionals – more graduates on a per capita basis in life sciences than most US states, Significant funding of medically related research,World class educational and research institutions, Competitive research and development tax credits, and Globally recognized teaching hospitals
27 September 10, 2004
Weak Demand Conditions in Toronto Do Not Promote Innovation
‘Monopsonist’ intermediate buyer – provincial government
Demanding Cost containment
But not sophisticatedNot responsive to end consumer needsOperate with silo mentality
Weak Demand Conditions:Restrictive government formularies Slow approval timePrice controlsWeak intellectual property protection laws
28 September 10, 2004
Canada Has Slow Regulatory Approval Times
Source: Ernst & Young analysis for Rx&D, 2000.
Average Drug Approval times for 1998
575
500
450
400
357
200180
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Canada Japan Australia EMEA US France UK
Number of Days
29 September 10, 2004
Canada Has Slow Regulatory Approval Times
International NCE Approval Times
Source: Rx&D, FDA, Parexel , SAPI.
743
535
426
615541
365
549493
365
395R
570
356
395R
591
383 395480
717
0100200300400
500600700800
Canada US Sweden
Days to Approval
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
30 September 10, 2004
Lengthy Approval Times Continue to be Worrisome for Investment in Canada
Canada ’s Research - Based Pharmaceutical Companies’ New Drug Submissions
Average Time to Approval
9401024
1097 10891163
1045 1044 1142
682615 549 570 591
743 717 672
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Source: Rx&D Notice of Compliance Survey (2001) - compiled by KPMG.
31 September 10, 2004
Lengthy Approval Times Continue to be Worrisome for Investment in Canada
Average Time to Full Listing of New Drugs Launched*
* Between December 2000 and November 2003Source: IMS, Provincial Reimbursement Advisor.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
BC AB SK MB ON QC NB NS NF
Days to listing
32 September 10, 2004
The Formulary in Ontario is the Very RestrictiveProvincial Variations in Patient Access to New Drugs*
* Out of 289 possibilities between 1996 and 2002 Source : IMS, Provincial Reimbursement Advisor.
45Alberta45Manitoba
59 Quebec 54Saskatchewan
3938
British Columbia Ontario
Proportion of New DrugsListed in Formulary (%)
PROVINCE
45Alberta45Manitoba
59Quebec54Saskatchewan
39
35
British Columbia
Ontario
Proportion of New DrugsListed in Formulary (%)
PROVINCE
33 September 10, 2004
Price Controls Stifle Innovation
Price ceilings Limit competitionImpede innovation – companies can’t recoup costsReduce the quality of health care provided to patients
“Canada’s failure to provide effective data exclusivity remains a cause for serious concern. Price controls, regulatory delays and restrictions on formulary listing also hamper PhRMA member companies’ ability to do business in Canada….The use of international price comparisons and the establishment of price ceilings on patented medicines are counterproductive to initiatives to provide high quality health care, and thus improve the health of patients, or to help contain healthcare spending.” (PhRMA 2004)
34 September 10, 2004
Canada Sets Prices to Achieve Median of 8 Countries
Source: PMPRB
Average Foreign to Canadian Price Ratios, Patented Drug Products
83.9 85.8
98.1100.9 100.0
107.2 108.6
169.0
78.982.7
93.6 95.9100.0
104.3 105.4
167.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Italy France Sweden Germany Canada UK Switzerland US
Ratio
20012002
35 September 10, 2004
Related/Supporting Industries Are a Weakness for Toronto
Presence of specialized legal firms in Toronto matches BostonToronto significantly lags life science venture capital in dollar terms (number of firms and average deal size are about 1/3 of that in Boston), but life science ventures account for similar percentage of all venture capital investments
Toronto firms primarily attract local VC funds; less successful in attracting outside funds
Toronto significantly lags Boston in the number of consultant firms with a specialty in life science and intellectual property
36 September 10, 2004
Supporting Industries Are a Weakness for Toronto
Boston: Boston Business JournalToronto: Canadian Association of Management Consultants & ICP research
1138Management Consultants
Boston: Massachusetts Venture Capital ServicesToronto: CVCA & ICP research
1844Venture Capital
Boston: Boston Lawyer DirectoryToronto: Ontario Bar Association
1720Legal
Firms Specializing in Health Care:
SourceToronto Boston
37 September 10, 2004
Fewer and Smaller Venture Capital Deals in Ontario
$7MMBMonteris Medical Inc.
$8MONLymphoSign Inc.
$8.5MQCBioMep Inc.
$10MQCInnodia Inc.
$10.3MQCInfectio Diagnostic
$12MQCBioxel Pharma Inc.
USD $11.5BCOncoGenex Technologies Inc.
12.3MQCAurelium Biopharma Inc.
$13.5MONBioniche Life Sciences Inc.
$22.1MQCAxcan Pharma Inc.
$ CADProvinceCompany Name
$2.4MProtedyne (CT)
$6MArthoSurface Inc.
$8.9MNephros Therapeutics Inc. (RI)
$9.0MAcceleron Pharma
$13.2MActivBiotics, Inc.
$16.7MArchemix Corporation
$20.5MMomenta Pharmaceuticals Inc.
$30MCombinatoRx Inc.
$33MDomantis Ltd.
$50MSynta Pharmaceuticals
Amount Raised (USD $)
Company Name
Source: CVCA, Boston.com
38 September 10, 2004
In Toronto, Firm Rivalry Seems Adequate
Stable economy Strong competition for limited VC funding Competitive anti-trust laws relative to other OECD nations Few firms – diminished inclination to compete on innovation Industry is open to competition – domestic and foreignInformal collaboration within Toronto cluster Strong industry organization involvement Marginal effective tax burdens are higher in Ontario than other leading jurisdictions
39 September 10, 2004
Porter’s Assessment of Boston Biopharma Cluster