Deep Research: Eliquis Manufacturing Cost and Profit Margin Analysis

Manufacturing and Production Costs

Raw Material (API) Costs

The active pharmaceutical ingredient in Eliquis is apixaban, a small-molecule chemical. Bulk apixaban API is relatively inexpensive on a per-dose basis. Industry pricing data show apixaban API selling for roughly $2.5-3.3 million per metric ton in late 2022^[1]. This translates to only around $2,500-$3,250 per kilogram, or about $0.01-$0.02 for the 5 mg of apixaban in a single tablet. In other words, the raw active ingredient in each pill costs only pennies. Even if we account for other formulation ingredients (excipients) and normal manufacturing waste, the material cost per tablet remains just a few cents.

Production and Distribution Expenses

Beyond raw materials, the process of manufacturing tablets (synthesis, quality control, tablet pressing, packaging) and distributing them adds some cost, but still a small fraction of the final price. An analysis of pharmaceutical finances indicates that direct production costs — including manufacturing and packaging — account for roughly 17% of a drug’s retail pharmacy price on average^[2]. The remaining 83% goes toward other parties’ markups and margins. In the case of Eliquis (with a U.S. list price around $600+ per month^[3] for a 30-day supply), the total manufacturing cost for a month’s supply is likely only on the order of a few dollars, when including raw ingredients, labor, and packaging. Distribution (shipping, handling, and storage) also contributes a relatively small amount. For example, one economic study found that out of each $100 spent on prescription drugs at U.S. pharmacies, about $17 covers manufacturing and production costs, while $41 goes to the manufacturer’s own margin and $41 goes to intermediaries like pharmacies, wholesalers, and insurers^[2:1]. This suggests that the cost to produce and deliver Eliquis is a tiny fraction of its price, with the vast majority of the price consisting of add-ons after the pill leaves the factory.

Generic Pricing as a Cost Indicator

Another way to gauge manufacturing cost is to look at generic apixaban pricing internationally. Generic versions (or brand-name Eliquis sold in lower-price markets) are available abroad at dramatically lower prices than the U.S. brand price, implying low production costs. For instance, Turkey has Eliquis available for roughly $1 per pill, compared to about $7-8 per pill in U.S. pharmacies^[4]. PharmacyChecker reports that overseas generic apixaban can be found for as little as $0.25 per tablet for a 2.5 mg dose^[5]. While those prices may still include some profit, they are much closer to the true manufacturing and distribution cost. The ability of suppliers to profit at <$1 per pill (and still ship it internationally) reinforces that Eliquis’s actual production cost is only pennies per dose, with virtually the entire U.S. price markup coming after manufacturing.

Profit Margins and Pricing Breakdown

High Gross Margins

As a typical small-molecule drug, Eliquis enjoys very high gross profit margins for its manufacturers. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Pfizer co-market Eliquis and share profits 50/50 globally^[6]. Even after splitting revenues, the gross margin on each sale is enormous because the cost of goods is so low. In the pharmaceutical industry, manufacturer gross margins average around 70-80% of sales for brand-name drugs^[2:2]. (In 2015, manufacturers’ gross margin was ~71% on average^[2:3], meaning cost of goods was only ~29%.) Eliquis likely falls near the high end of gross margins since it is a pill (not an expensive biologic to produce). Notably, BMS’s overall gross margin in recent years was ~75%, and the company even cited Eliquis’s profit-sharing as a factor slightly reducing its margin (because some revenue goes to Pfizer)^[7]. In practice, this still means the combined BMS/Pfizer gross margin on Eliquis is well above 80%. In other words, the manufacturers spend well under 20 cents of each sales dollar on production costs, with over 80 cents being margin that can go toward other expenses or profit.

Net Profit and Revenue

After accounting for all expenses (R&D, marketing, admin, etc.), pharmaceutical companies typically have net profit margins on the order of 15-30%, which is very high compared to most industries. For example, an economic study found that out of $100 spent on drugs at retail, about $15 ends up as net profit to the manufacturer^[2:4]. Eliquis has become one of the world’s top-selling drugs, so it generates enormous profits. Global sales of Eliquis reached $10-11 billion annually in recent years (BMS reported $10.8B in 2021, Pfizer $6.0B, totaling ~$16.8B) and continued growing^[8]. Since launch, BMS alone has made $34.6 billion in U.S. Eliquis revenue (2013-2022), compared to $22.5B in all other countries combined^[9] — indicating the U.S. market provides the bulk of profit thanks to higher pricing. Importantly, the R&D investment to develop Eliquis was only a small fraction of these returns (see below), which underscores the high profit margins embedded in its price.

R&D Costs vs. Pricing

A common justification for high drug prices is recouping research and development costs. Developing a new drug is indeed expensive — estimates range from several hundred million up to ~$2 billion for one drug. Eliquis’s specific R&D cost hasn’t been disclosed, but industry averages (accounting for failed trials) are often cited around $1-2.6 billion per new drug^[10]. In reality, Eliquis’s revenue has far exceeded its development cost. An analysis by AARP found that Medicare alone spent $27.2 billion on Eliquis from 2016-2020, which is “more than ten times the average R&D cost for a drug.”^[10:1] And that’s just Medicare purchases over five years — total global sales over Eliquis’s patent life will be many multiples of its R&D investment. This indicates that only a small portion of Eliquis’s price can be attributed to R&D recoupment, and the pricing is not simply a direct pass-through of development cost. In fact, academic studies have found no correlation between a drug’s price and its R&D spending — many high-priced drugs are priced well above what their R&D would justify^[11][12]. For Eliquis, the continuing price hikes (the U.S. list price doubled from ~$3,100/year in 2013 to ~$7,100/year by 2024^[9:1]) reflect market-driven pricing power more than underlying cost.

Marketing and Advertising

A substantial portion of revenue from drugs like Eliquis is funneled into marketing, sales, and administrative costs. This includes things like sales representative teams, physician outreach, and direct-to-consumer advertising — none of which directly improve the product but do drive sales. Evidence shows pharmaceutical firms often spend as much or more on marketing than on R&D. During the COVID-19 era, a study found 7 out of 10 big drug companies spent more on sales and marketing than on research and development^[13]. Eliquis is heavily marketed: for example, BMS/Pfizer spent $170.5 million on TV advertising for Eliquis in 2020, surpassing even the $122 million J&J spent advertising Xarelto the year prior^[13:1]. These are just direct TV ad costs; on top of that come physician marketing and promotions. The marketing budget is funded by the drug’s high price — essentially, patients (and insurers) are paying for the ubiquitous ads and promotions through the price of Eliquis. This suggests that a notable chunk of Eliquis’s pricing is attributed to marketing and administrative overhead rather than the intrinsic cost of the medicine.

Allocation of Revenue (Profits vs. R&D)

The way companies use their profits further illustrates pricing priorities. In recent years, leading pharma companies have returned substantial profits to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks, often exceeding what they spend on research. For instance, Bristol Myers Squibb in 2022 made $6.3 billion in profit and spent $9.5 billion on R&D, but it spent even more — $12.7 billion — on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive compensation^[9:2]. In other words, BMS devoted more cash to enriching shareholders than to research that year, despite arguing that high drug prices fuel innovation. This pattern is common across “big pharma.” The Senate HELP Committee report noted that BMS, J&J, and others routinely prioritize shareholder returns and marketing, while still charging high prices in the U.S. (for example, BMS charges U.S. patients several times what it charges in Japan for Eliquis^[9:3]). All of this indicates that Eliquis’s price is far above its manufacturing cost for reasons largely tied to the pharmaceutical business model: maximizing profit, funding large marketing efforts, and rewarding shareholders, not simply covering production or R&D expenses.

Key Takeaways

• Manufacturing Cost is Minimal: The cost to manufacture Eliquis (apixaban) is only a few cents per pill, when considering raw chemical costs and production. Bulk apixaban API has been priced around $2,500-$3,250 per kg, which is roughly $0.01-$0.02 for the active ingredient per 5 mg tablet^[1:1]. Even adding formulation, packaging, and distribution, the total cost of goods for a month’s supply (30 pills) is only a few dollars, a tiny fraction of the ~$600 U.S. list price.

• Enormous Markup and Profit Margins: The price of Eliquis is marked up dozens of times over its production cost. Manufacturers enjoy gross margins on Eliquis on the order of 80%+. Average direct production expenses are only ~17% of a drug’s retail price^[2:5], and in Eliquis’s case the rest goes to the manufacturer’s margin, marketing, and supply chain markups. The net profit to the manufacturer is substantial — pharma companies net about 15-30% of revenues as profit (about $15 profit per $100 in drug sales on average)^[2:6]. In the U.S., Eliquis has generated tens of billions in revenue, far exceeding its development costs, demonstrating a very high profit yield.

• Pricing Funds Marketing and Shareholder Returns, Not Just R&D: While drug companies cite R&D to justify prices, Eliquis’s sales have outstripped its R&D cost many times over. Medicare spent $27+ billion in 5 years on Eliquis^[10:2], likely recouping any reasonable R&D investment multiple times. Meanwhile, marketing and administrative spending consumes a large portion of revenue — e.g. over $170 million on Eliquis TV ads in a single year^[13:2] — and analyses show most big pharma companies spend more on marketing than on research^[13:3]. Additionally, companies like BMS have directed billions in profits to dividends and stock buybacks (>$12 billion in 2022) exceeding what they spend on R&D^[9:4]. This breakdown suggests that only a small slice of Eliquis’s price goes toward scientific innovation, while a significant share supports marketing efforts and yields profits for the company and its shareholders.

Sources