Problem Definition
Norvale Pharma is a U.S. generic-drug manufacturer with annual revenue of about $1.9 billion and an EBITDA margin of 18%. Its portfolio is made up of oral tablets and simple injectables sold to wholesalers and pharmacy chains. Margins on these products have been squeezed for years, so Norvale's board decided to move into biosimilars: lower-cost, highly similar versions of biologic drugs whose patents have expired.
Norvale's first biosimilar is a version of ustekinumab, the antibody sold by Johnson & Johnson as Stelara and used to treat psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Norvale spent about $180 million over seven years developing it, and the FDA approved it this year. Norvale plans to launch in the U.S. in January 2027.
The market Norvale is entering has changed a lot since the program started. The first ustekinumab biosimilars launched in the U.S. in 2025, and eight are now on the market. Stelara's U.S. sales fell from about $6.7 billion in 2024 to about $3.85 billion in 2025, and fell a further ~73% year over year in the first half of 2026. Most biosimilars list at 80-90% below Stelara's list price, and the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) now sell their own "private label" versions made by biosimilar manufacturers.
The CEO has asked your team: Should Norvale launch its ustekinumab biosimilar, and if so, how should it price and sell it?
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
If asked, please share that:
- Norvale has no sales force for specialty drugs and no experience selling to PBMs or specialty pharmacies; it sells to wholesalers and pharmacy chains
- Ustekinumab is mainly given as an injection under the skin and is covered under the pharmacy benefit (a dose every 8 weeks in maintenance)
- Norvale's biosimilar is made by a contract manufacturer with capacity of up to 80,000 doses a year
- The $180 million development cost has already been spent
- In October 2025, the FDA issued draft guidance saying it will no longer routinely require comparative efficacy studies for biosimilars, and it has said it intends to make it easier for biosimilars to be designated as interchangeable
Question 1Structuring
How would you approach the CEO's question?
Hint · Structuring
Build 3–4 branches that are specific to this client and question, not a generic framework. Check they don't overlap and together cover the problem.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- If asked, the CEO wants a decision within three months so that launch preparations can start
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
A strong structure would cover four areas:
1. Market: how big will the prize be?
- a) Total patient volume on ustekinumab (doses per year) and its trend
- b) Share of volume already moved to biosimilars and how fast it is moving
- c) Net price per dose for the brand and for biosimilars, after rebates and fees
2. Competition and channel: who decides who wins?
- a) Number of biosimilars already on the market and their list prices (WAC)
- b) The role of PBMs: formulary exclusions, private-label deals
- c) Interchangeability rules and whether pharmacists can substitute
3. Norvale's economics
- a) Revenue scenarios: share of biosimilar volume x net price
- b) Costs: cost of goods per dose, launch and commercial costs, contract terms
- c) Profit and payback of each option (open-market launch, private-label deal, sell the product rights)
4. Capabilities and risks
- a) Norvale's lack of a specialty sales force and PBM relationships
- b) Supply: 80,000 doses of capacity
- c) Risks: further price falls, dependence on one customer, supply failures
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
A good candidate will cover the market, the competition, Norvale's economics and its capabilities. A strong candidate will separate the go/no-go decision from the "how to launch" decision (price, channel, partners). An excellent candidate will point out immediately that the $180 million development cost is sunk: it should not drive the launch decision, which depends only on the future profits from launching versus not launching (or selling the asset).
Push back if the candidate uses a generic "4Ps" framework without reference to biosimilar-specific issues such as PBM formularies, rebates or interchangeability.
So What? cascade:
- Level 1: we need to understand the market size, competition and Norvale's costs
- Level 2: in this market, the price and the channel decide volume. Who controls the formulary (the PBMs) matters more than doctors' preference
- Level 3: the $180M is sunk, so the question is only whether future profits from launching beat the alternatives, including selling or licensing the product to a company that already sells to PBMs
Question 2Numeracy
Let us size the prize. Using the data I will share, estimate what the total U.S. ustekinumab market will be worth in 2028, and how much of it will go to biosimilars.
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
Share the following, one piece at a time as the candidate asks:
- Norvale estimates that the U.S. market uses about 450,000 doses a year (in 90 mg dose equivalents), and that this volume will stay flat
- In 2024, before biosimilars launched, Stelara's U.S. net sales were about $6.72 billion
- Norvale forecasts that by 2028, biosimilars will hold 70% of volume (they held about 27% at the end of 2025)
- Norvale forecasts an average net price per dose in 2028 of about $9,000 for the brand and $3,000 for biosimilars
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Step 1: 2024 baseline
- Net price per dose in 2024 = $6.72B / 450,000 = ~$14,900 per dose
Step 2: 2028 volume split
- Brand doses: 450,000 x 30% = 135,000
- Biosimilar doses: 450,000 x 70% = 315,000
Step 3: 2028 market value
| Segment | Doses | Net price per dose | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stelara (brand) | 135,000 | $9,000 | $1.215B |
| Biosimilars (all) | 315,000 | $3,000 | $0.945B |
| Total | 450,000 | $2.16B |
Step 4: Compare with 2024
- $2.16B / $6.72B = 32%, so the market loses about 68% of its value while volume is flat
- The entire biosimilar pool is about $945 million a year, shared across nine or more biosimilars and the PBMs' private labels
Key insight: An average share of the biosimilar pool (1/9, about 11%) would be worth only about $105 million in revenue. A late ninth entrant cannot expect an average share. The prize is real but small, and how Norvale reaches patients matters more than the size of the market.
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
This question checks that the candidate can move between value and volume. A strong candidate will first work out the implied net price per dose in 2024 (about $14,900) and use it to see how far prices have fallen. An excellent candidate will comment on the result: the market will lose about two-thirds of its value while volume stays the same, and the whole biosimilar pool (about $945 million) is shared by nine or more companies.
If the candidate is stuck, prompt: "How many of the 450,000 doses will be biosimilar in 2028, and what is each worth?"
Question 3Judgement & Insights
Look at Exhibits 1 and 2. What do they tell you about how a ninth biosimilar can win volume in this market?
Hint · Judgement & Insights
Read the exhibit title, axes and units first. Lead with the ‘so what’, then back it with one or two numbers.
Exhibit 1Biosimilar Share of Volume, Selected Molecules
| Molecule (brand) | Benefit type | Years since first U.S. biosimilar | Biosimilar share of volume |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bevacizumab, trastuzumab, rituximab (oncology) | Medical | 5+ | ~77-92% |
| Infliximab (Remicade) | Medical | 5+ | ~50% |
| Immunology average (infliximab and adalimumab) | Mixed | 5 | ~25% |
| Adalimumab (Humira) | Pharmacy | ~3 | ~60% (Feb 2026) |
| Ustekinumab (Stelara) | Pharmacy | ~1 | ~27% (end 2025) → ~42% (Q1 2026) |
Sources: see Data Sources.
Source: Norvale Pharma case file
Exhibit 2U.S. Ustekinumab Price Landscape (90 mg prefilled syringe, Q2 2026)
| Product type | Examples | List price (WAC) | Discount vs. Stelara WAC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stelara (brand) | Stelara | ~$30,600 | — |
| Biosimilar, low list price | Selarsdi, Pyzchiva, Starjemza and others | ~$500-7,300 | ~75-98% |
| Biosimilar, dual list price (high and low) | Wezlana | ~$27,600 / ~$5,600 | ~10% / ~82% |
| PBM private label | Versions sold through Nuvaila, Cordavis, Quallent | ~$4,200-15,700 | ~49-86% |
Most ustekinumab biosimilars chose a single low list price rather than the dual-price strategy common for adalimumab. Figures rounded. Sources: see Data Sources.
Source: Norvale Pharma case file
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- Share Exhibits 1 and 2
- If asked, the three private-label companies belong to the three largest PBMs: Nuvaila (Optum Rx), Cordavis (CVS Caremark) and Quallent (Express Scripts)
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
1. Uptake has been unusually fast, and PBMs are the reason
- Historically, immunology biosimilars averaged only about 25% share five years after launch
- Adalimumab reached about 60% within three years, and ustekinumab about 42% within roughly 15 months. Both are pharmacy-benefit drugs where PBMs launched private labels and moved patients through formulary decisions
2. Price is no longer a way to stand out
- Most biosimilars already list 80-90% below Stelara, and some list more than 95% below
- A ninth entrant cannot undercut meaningfully; the PBM compares net cost, supply reliability and contract terms
3. Interchangeability and regulation are levelling the field further
- The FDA's move toward treating biosimilars as interchangeable removes one of the few ways a product could differentiate itself
- This helps Norvale's future pipeline (lower development cost) but does not help it stand out in this launch
4. Implication for Norvale
- Launching as a standalone brand in the open market would mean building a specialty access team to fight for formulary positions that are already taken
- The more realistic route is a supply agreement with a PBM or a partner that already sells to PBMs
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
The exhibits contain one key pattern: immunology biosimilars historically gained share slowly (about 25% after five years), but the two pharmacy-benefit molecules where PBMs launched private labels (adalimumab and ustekinumab) have moved much faster. The candidate should conclude that share in this market is decided by PBM formulary decisions, not by persuading doctors, and that price is no longer a differentiator because nearly everyone is already 80-90% below the brand.
So What? cascade:
- Level 1: ustekinumab biosimilars reached ~42% share quickly and most are priced 80-90% below Stelara
- Level 2: this is much faster than the historical immunology average, and the difference is driven by PBMs putting biosimilars (often their own private labels) on their formularies
- Level 3: a ninth entrant with no specialty sales force cannot win share by detailing doctors or by undercutting on list price. Its realistic route to volume is to supply a PBM (as a private label or a preferred product), which means competing on reliable supply and net cost to the PBM
Question 4Numeracy
Norvale has two offers on the table for 2028. Which is more profitable, and what would make you hesitate?
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
Share the following:
- Option A: Open-market launch. Norvale sells under its own brand at a low list price. Expected net price about $3,000 per dose. Expected share: 5% of biosimilar volume. Commercial costs (market access team, patient support program, distribution fees): about $25 million a year
- Option B: Private-label supply deal with one large PBM. Norvale supplies the PBM's private label. Supply price about $1,400 per dose. Expected share: 20% of biosimilar volume. Commercial costs: about $6 million a year. Three-year contract, which the PBM can re-bid at the end
- Cost of goods (contract manufacturing, fill and finish, testing): about $350 per dose under both options
- Use the 2028 biosimilar volume from Question 2 (315,000 doses)
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Step 1: Volumes
- Option A: 315,000 x 5% = 15,750 doses
- Option B: 315,000 x 20% = 63,000 doses (within the 80,000-dose capacity)
Step 2: Profit comparison
| Option A: Open market | Option B: Private label | |
|---|---|---|
| Doses | 15,750 | 63,000 |
| Net price per dose | $3,000 | $1,400 |
| Revenue | $47.25M | $88.2M |
| Cost of goods ($350 per dose) | -$5.51M | -$22.05M |
| Gross profit | $41.74M | $66.15M |
| Commercial costs | -$25.0M | -$6.0M |
| Contribution | $16.74M | $60.15M |
Gross profit per dose: A = $3,000 - $350 = $2,650; B = $1,400 - $350 = $1,050.
Step 3: Break-even check
For Option A to match Option B, Norvale would need $60.15M + $25M = $85.15M of gross profit, or 85.15 / 2,650 ≈ 32,100 doses, about 10% of biosimilar volume, double the 5% it expects. That is unrealistic for a ninth entrant without a specialty sales force.
Step 4: What would make me hesitate about Option B
- One customer: one PBM would account for the whole product, and it can re-bid in three years
- Price resets: private-label supply prices may fall further as more makers compete
- Capacity: 63,000 doses uses about 79% of capacity; a supply failure could cost the contract
- Mitigations: ask for a longer contract (four to five years) with minimum volumes, keep the right to sell under Norvale's own brand in channels outside that PBM, and hold safety stock or a second fill-finish site
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
The candidate should calculate volume, revenue, gross profit and contribution for each option. A strong candidate will check the result against Norvale's 80,000-dose capacity. An excellent candidate will name the risks of Option B (dependence on one customer, re-bid after three years, further price pressure) and propose ways to reduce them rather than rejecting the higher-profit option.
So What? cascade:
- Level 1: Option B has a lower price per dose
- Level 2: Option B's volume is four times higher and it needs far less commercial spending, so it earns about 3.6 times the contribution
- Level 3: Option B turns Norvale into a supplier to one powerful buyer. The contract terms (length, volume commitments, price resets) are worth more than the headline price, and Norvale should negotiate those, not just accept the deal
Question 5Synthesis
The CEO asks for your recommendation. What do you tell her?
Hint · Synthesis
Answer first: the recommendation, two or three reasons with numbers, then risks and next steps.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- If asked, IQVIA estimates that about 118 biologics will lose exclusivity in the U.S. over the next decade, worth about $234 billion in sales, and that about 90% of them have no biosimilar in development
- If asked, biosimilar development typically costs $100-250 million
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Recommendation: launch, through a private-label supply agreement, and change the strategy for the next biosimilars.
1. Launch: yes
- The $180M development cost is sunk; the product can still earn meaningful profit
- The total ustekinumab market will shrink from about $6.7B (2024) to about $2.2B (2028), and the biosimilar pool will be about $945M a year
2. How: private-label supply deal (Option B)
- Contribution of about $60M a year versus about $17M for an open-market launch
- Needs almost no specialty sales capability, which Norvale does not have
- Negotiate for a four- to five-year term, minimum volume commitments and the right to sell under Norvale's own name outside the PBM
3. Next: change where Norvale plays
- Late entry into crowded molecules leaves a small share of a pool that has already lost most of its value
- About 90% of the ~118 biologics losing exclusivity in the next decade (about $234B of sales) have no biosimilar in development
- The FDA's October 2025 guidance, which drops routine comparative efficacy studies, should lower development costs from the $100-250M range, making smaller molecules worth pursuing
- Prioritize one or two molecules where Norvale could be first or second to market
Risks and next steps
- Confirm the net price forecasts with PBM market research before signing
- Qualify a second fill-finish site to protect supply
- Build a small team for PBM contracting now, since every future biosimilar will need it
- Screen the list of upcoming patent expiries for molecules with few competitors and a development cost below about $100M
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
A good candidate recommends launching through the private-label deal and supports it with numbers. A strong candidate states clearly that the sunk $180M does not affect the decision. An excellent candidate looks beyond this product: the ustekinumab market shows that late entry into a crowded molecule earns little, and Norvale's biosimilar strategy should shift toward molecules with few or no competitors, where the FDA's lighter requirements make development cheaper.
So What? cascade:
- Level 1: launch through Option B because it earns more
- Level 2: Option B earns about $60M a year versus about $17M, but it depends on one PBM, so contract terms matter
- Level 3: this launch recovers part of the investment, but the real lesson is about where Norvale competes next. The money is in molecules that others have ignored, not in the ninth copy of a crowded one
Data Sources
Company figures (Norvale's revenue, development cost, dose volume, net prices, share scenarios, cost of goods and contract offers) are fictional estimates set against the benchmarks below. Market figures are rounded for interview math.
| Fact used in the case | Publisher, title, year | URL |
|---|---|---|
| Stelara U.S. sales ~$6.72B (2024) and ~$3.85B (2025, -42.7%) | Johnson & Johnson, Q4 2025 results, sales by product (Form 8-K Exhibit 99.2), 2026 | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/200406/000020040626000002/a2025q4exhibit992.htm |
| Stelara U.S. sales H1 2026 ~$556M vs ~$2,059M in H1 2025 (-73%) | Johnson & Johnson, Q2 2026 results, sales by product (Form 8-K Exhibit 99.2), 2026 | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/200406/000020040626000146/a2026q2exhibit992.htm |
| Eight U.S. ustekinumab biosimilars; Stelara 90 mg WAC ~$30,600; biosimilar WACs ~75-98% below (low WAC), dual WAC -10%/-82%, private labels via Nuvaila, Cordavis, Quallent; most ustekinumab biosimilars did not adopt dual/high WAC; immunology average ~25% share by year 5; oncology 77-92% | Samsung Bioepis, "Biosimilar Market Report, 13th Edition, Q2 2026", 2026 | https://m.samsungbioepis.com/upload/attach/SB+Biosimilar+Market+Report+Q2+2026.pdf |
| Adalimumab biosimilar share ~60% (Feb 2026); ustekinumab biosimilar share ~27% (Q4 2025) | Pearce IP, "Samsung Bioepis' Q2/2026 US Biosimilar Market Report Published", 2026 | https://www.pearceip.law/2026/04/27/samsung-bioepis-q2-2026-us-biosimilar-market-report-published-market-shares-of-adalimumab-ustekinumab-biosimilars-at-60-27/ |
| Ustekinumab biosimilar share ~42% as of Q1 2026 (+15 points vs. Q4 2025) | Samsung Bioepis, "Biosimilar Market Report, 14th Edition, Q3 2026", 2026 | https://m.samsungbioepis.com/upload/attach/SB+Biosimilar+Market+Report+Q3+2026.pdf |
| FDA draft guidance (Oct 2025) no longer routinely requiring comparative efficacy studies; move to treat biosimilars as interchangeable | Arnold & Porter, "FDA Proposes to Eliminate Comparative Clinical Efficacy Studies for Biosimilars", 2025 | https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2025/11/fda-proposes-to-eliminate-biosimilar-comparative-studies |
| 118 biologics losing exclusivity in the next decade (~$234B); ~90% without biosimilars in development; development cost $100-250M | Center for Biosimilars (IQVIA Institute, "Assessing the Biosimilar Void in the U.S."), 2025 | https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/view/the-biosimilar-void-90-of-biologics-coming-off-patent-will-lack-biosimilars |
Free in the DrillCase case library · Editorial policy