AMGEN INC

Previous wording

Sales of our products depend on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including government healthcare programs and private insurance plans. Governments and private payers continue to pursue initiatives to manage drug utilization and contain costs. Further, pressures on healthcare budgets from the economic downturn and inflation continue and are likely to increase across the markets we serve. Payers are increasingly focused on costs, which have resulted, and are expected to continue to result, in lower reimbursement rates for our products or narrower populations for which payers will reimburse. Continued intense public scrutiny of the price of drugs and other healthcare costs, together with payer dynamics, have limited, and are likely to continue to limit, our ability to set or adjust the price of our products based on their value, which can have a material adverse effect on our business. In the United States, particularly over the past few years, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced and/or signed into law that attempt to lower drug prices. These include the IRA law that enables the U.S. government to set prices for certain drugs in Medicare, redesigns Medicare Part D benefits to shift a greater portion of the costs to manufacturers and enables the U.S. government to impose penalties if drug prices are increased at a rate faster than inflation (IRA Inflation Penalties). Additional proposals focused on drug pricing continue to be debated, and additional executive orders focused on drug pricing and competition are likely to be adopted and implemented in some form. In March 2024, the Administration released its budget plan for fiscal year 2025 that included proposals to expand the IRA’s drug price setting to more drugs and sooner after launch and making IRA Inflation Penalties applicable to commercial health insurance. Government actions or ballot initiatives at the state level also represent a highly active area of policymaking and experimentation, including proposals that limit drug reimbursement under state run Medicaid programs based on decisions of drug affordability boards, use of reference prices, or permitting importation of drugs from Canada. Such state policies may also eventually be adopted at the federal level.

Current wording

Sales of our products depend on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including government healthcare programs and private insurance plans. Governments and private payers continue to pursue initiatives to manage drug utilization and contain costs. Further, pressures on healthcare budgets from the economic downturn and inflation continue and are likely to increase across the markets we serve. Payers are increasingly focused on costs, which have resulted, and are expected to continue to result, in lower reimbursement rates for our products or narrower populations for which payers will reimburse. Continued intense public scrutiny of the price of drugs and other healthcare costs, together with payer dynamics, have limited, and are likely to continue to limit, our ability to set or adjust the price of our products based on their value, which can have a material adverse effect on our business. In the United States, particularly over the past few years, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced and/or signed into law that attempt to lower drug prices. These include the IRA law that enables the U.S. government to set prices for certain drugs in Medicare, redesigns Medicare Part D benefits to shift a greater portion of the costs to manufacturers and enables the U.S. government to impose penalties if drug prices are increased at a rate faster than inflation (IRA Inflation Penalties). Additional proposals focused on drug pricing continue to be debated, and additional executive orders or regulatory initiatives focused on drug pricing and competition are likely to be adopted and implemented in some form. In March 2024, the Administration released its budget plan for fiscal year 2025 that included proposals to expand the IRA’s drug price setting to more drugs and sooner after launch and making IRA Inflation Penalties applicable to commercial health insurance. Government actions or ballot initiatives at the state level also represent a highly active area of policymaking and experimentation, including proposals that limit drug reimbursement under state run Medicaid programs based on decisions of drug affordability boards, use of reference prices, or permitting importation of drugs from Canada. Such state policies may also eventually be adopted at the federal level.

Previous wording

A substantial portion of our U.S. business relies on reimbursement from federal government healthcare programs and commercial insurance plans regulated by federal and state governments. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023. Our business has been and will continue to be affected by legislative actions changing U.S. federal reimbursement policy. For example, in 2022, the IRA was enacted and includes provisions requiring that beginning in 2026, mandatory price setting be introduced in Medicare for certain drugs paid for under Parts B and D, whereby manufacturers must accept a price established by the government or face penalties on all U.S. sales (starting with 10 drugs in 2026, adding 15 in 2027 and 2028, and adding 20 in 2029 and subsequent years such that by 2031 approximately 100 drugs could be subject to such set prices). The Medicare price setting process began in August 2023 when CMS announced the first 10 drugs for Medicare price setting, which includes ENBREL, currently a product that generates considerable revenue. Effective July 30, 2024, CMS has set a price for ENBREL in Medicare Part D that will be applicable beginning on January 1, 2026, which we expect will negatively impact its profitability. See Part I, Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Results of operations—Product sales—ENBREL. Depending on the growth and success of our medicines, other of our medicines may also be subject to selection by CMS in the next, or in a future, cycle of mandatory Medicare price setting. If other of our medicines are selected by CMS for mandatory price setting, we may be required to accept a price set by the government similar to the process that was applied to ENBREL. Also under the IRA, starting on January 1, 2024, Medicare Part D was redesigned to cap beneficiary out-of-pocket costs and, beginning January 1, 2025, Federal reinsurance will be reduced in the catastrophic phase (resulting in a shift and increase of such costs to Part D plans and manufacturers, including by requiring manufacturer discounts on certain drugs). Further, the IRA created a mechanism for CMS to collect rebates from manufacturers if price increases outpace inflation. Rebate obligations began to accrue October 1, 2022 for Medicare Part D and January 1, 2023 for Medicare Part B, but CMS has not yet issued invoices and has some discretion as to when to issue such invoices to manufacturers. We expect that several of our products will be subject to these inflation rebates, and several of our products have been on lists that are issued and updated on a quarterly basis by CMS under a related program under which Medicare beneficiaries are charged reduced coinsurance if price increases exceed inflation. The IRA’s drug pricing controls and Medicare redesign are likely to have a material adverse effect on our sales, our business and our results of operati…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

A substantial portion of our U.S. business relies on reimbursement from federal government healthcare programs and commercial insurance plans regulated by federal and state governments. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023. Our business has been and will continue to be affected by legislative actions changing U.S. federal reimbursement policy. For example, in 2022, the IRA was enacted and includes provisions requiring that beginning in 2026, mandatory price setting be introduced in Medicare for certain drugs paid for under Parts B and D, whereby manufacturers must accept a price established by the government or face penalties on all U.S. sales (starting with 10 drugs in 2026, adding 15 in 2027 and 2028, and adding 20 in 2029 and subsequent years such that by 2031 approximately 100 drugs could be subject to such set prices). The Medicare price setting process began in August 2023 when CMS announced the first 10 drugs for Medicare price setting, which includes ENBREL, currently a product that generates considerable revenue. Effective July 30, 2024, CMS set a price for ENBREL in Medicare Part D, applicable beginning on January 1, 2026, which we expect will negatively impact its profitability. See Part I, Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Results of operations—Product sales—ENBREL. Depending on the growth and success of our medicines, other of our medicines may also be subject to selection by CMS in the next, or in a future, cycle of mandatory Medicare price setting. If other of our medicines are selected by CMS for mandatory Medicare price setting, we may be required to accept a price set by the government for Medicare similar to the process that was applied to ENBREL. Also under the IRA, starting on January 1, 2024, Medicare Part D was redesigned to cap beneficiary out-of-pocket costs and, beginning January 1, 2025, Federal reinsurance will be reduced in the catastrophic phase (resulting in a shift and increase of such costs to Part D plans and manufacturers, including by requiring manufacturer discounts on certain drugs). Further, the IRA created a mechanism for CMS to collect rebates from manufacturers if price increases outpace inflation. Rebate obligations began to accrue October 1, 2022 for Medicare Part D and January 1, 2023 for Medicare Part B, but CMS has not yet issued invoices and has some discretion as to when to issue such invoices to manufacturers. We expect that several of our products will be subject to these inflation rebates, and several of our products have been on lists that are issued and updated on a quarterly basis by CMS under a related program under which Medicare beneficiaries are charged reduced coinsurance if price increases exceed inflation. The IRA’s drug pricing controls and Medicare redesign are likely to have a material adverse effect on our sales, our business and our results of o…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

At the state level, legislation, government actions, and ballot initiatives can also affect how our products are covered and reimbursed and/or create additional pressure on our pricing decisions. Existing and proposed state pricing laws have added complexity to the pricing of drugs and may already be affecting industry pricing decisions. A number of states have adopted, and many other states are considering, PDABs, drug importation programs, and other pricing actions, including proposals designed to require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to report to the state proprietary pricing information or provide advance notice of certain price increases.

Current wording

At the state level, legislation, government actions, and ballot initiatives can also affect how our products are covered and reimbursed and/or create additional pressure on our pricing decisions. Existing and proposed state pricing laws have added complexity to the pricing of drugs and may already be affecting industry pricing decisions. A number of states have adopted, and many other states are considering, PDABs, drug importation programs, reference pricing schemes, and other pricing actions, including proposals designed to require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to report to the state proprietary pricing information or provide advance notice of certain price increases.

Previous wording

States are also enacting laws referencing the IRA and seeking to regulate the 340B Drug Pricing Program. For example, following the passage of the IRA, bills have been proposed in multiple states that would apply the drug price caps set by HHS for Medicare to drug prices in an individual state, and such references to IRA price caps have also been included in PDAB legislation. For Medicaid patients, states have established a Medicaid drug spending cap (New York) and implemented a new review and supplemental rebate negotiation process (Massachusetts). Eight states (Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington) have enacted laws that establish PDABs to identify drugs that pose affordability challenges, and four such states include authority for the state PDAB to set upper payment limits on certain drugs for in-state patients, payers and providers. In 2024, no fewer than 16 states introduced PDAB legislation. The eight states with enacted PDAB laws are in various phases of implementation, with Colorado’s PDAB being the furthest along. In August 2023, the Colorado PDAB announced the first five drugs to undergo an affordability review, three of which, including ENBREL, have since been deemed “unaffordable” and will be subject to rulemaking to establish an Upper Payment Limit (UPL). For ENBREL, a UPL could be effective as soon as the second quarter of 2025. Further, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Minnesota, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Maryland have enacted laws with mandates on manufacturers participating in the 340B drug pricing program, and, thus far in 2024, no fewer than 25 states have considered similar legislation. These bills vary, but include provisions on restricting a manufacturer’s ability to direct drugs in 340B channels, recognizing 340B contract pharmacies and a prohibition on requiring the inclusion of 340B claims modifiers. In March 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8 th Circuit ruled that Arkansas’ Act 1103, which prohibits drugmakers from restricting the acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to covered entities and their contract pharmacies, was not preempted by the federal 340B statute. The decision could increase the number of states that will consider similar legislation. Further, in Genesis Health Care, Inc. v. Becerra, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued an order in November 2023 that enjoins the Health Resources and Services Administration from enforcing its more restrictive interpretation of what is considered a patient under the 340B program, to the potential benefit of healthcare systems seeking to expand the application of 340B discounts.

Current wording

States are also enacting laws referencing the IRA and seeking to regulate the 340B Drug Pricing Program. For example, following the passage of the IRA, bills have been proposed in multiple states that would apply the drug price caps set by HHS for Medicare to drug prices in an individual state, and such references to IRA price caps have also been included in PDAB legislation. For Medicaid patients, states have established a Medicaid drug spending cap (New York) and implemented a new review and supplemental rebate negotiation process (Massachusetts). Eight states (Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington) have enacted laws that establish PDABs to identify drugs that pose affordability challenges, and four such states include authority for the state PDAB to set upper payment limits on certain drugs for in-state patients, payers and providers. In 2024, no fewer than 17 states introduced PDAB legislation. The eight states with enacted PDAB laws are in various phases of implementation, with Colorado’s PDAB being the furthest along. In August 2023, the Colorado PDAB announced the first five drugs to undergo an affordability review, three of which, including ENBREL, have since been deemed “unaffordable” and will be subject to rulemaking to establish an Upper Payment Limit (UPL). For ENBREL, a UPL could be effective as soon as the third quarter of 2025. Further, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Minnesota, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Maryland have enacted laws with mandates on manufacturers participating in the 340B drug pricing program, and, thus far in 2024, no fewer than 25 states have considered similar legislation. These bills vary, but include provisions on restricting a manufacturer’s ability to direct drugs in 340B channels, recognizing 340B contract pharmacies and a prohibition on requiring the inclusion of 340B claims modifiers. In March 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8 th Circuit ruled that Arkansas’ Act 1103, which prohibits drugmakers from restricting the acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to covered entities and their contract pharmacies, was not preempted by the federal 340B statute. The decision could increase the number of states that will consider similar legislation. In July 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied motions for a preliminary injunction in two cases challenging a similar law in Mississippi, finding that neither plaintiff had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. These orders are being appealed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5 th Circuit. In September 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana dismissed a lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s 340B contract pharmacy mandate law, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion for preliminary injunction challenging a similar law in Maryland. These lawsuits challenging states on their 340B contract …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Payers, including healthcare insurers, PBMs, integrated healthcare delivery systems (vertically-integrated organizations built from consolidations of healthcare insurers and PBMs) and group purchasing organizations, increasingly seek ways to reduce their costs. With increasing frequency, payers are adopting benefit plan changes that shift a greater proportion of drug costs to patients. Such measures include more limited benefit plan designs, high deductible plans, higher patient co-pay or coinsurance obligations and more significant limitations on patients’ use of manufacturer commercial co-pay assistance programs. Further, government regulation of payers may affect these trends. For example, CMS finalized a policy for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2021 that has caused commercial payers to more widely adopt co-pay accumulator adjustment programs. While the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down this policy in September 2023 and further clarified in December 2023 that its ruling had the effect of reinstating the co-pay accumulator adjustment policy from 2020, CMS and HHS have signaled that they do not intend to enforce certain restrictions from the 2020 policy that would reduce the adoption of co-pay accumulator adjustment programs. Payers, including PBMs, have sought, and continue to seek, price discounts or rebates in connection with the placement of our products on their formularies or those they manage, and to also impose restrictions on access to or usage of our products (such as Step Therapy), require that patients receive the payer’s prior authorization before covering the product, and/or chosen to exclude certain indications for which our products are approved. For example, some payers require physicians to demonstrate or document that the patients for whom Repatha has been prescribed meet their utilization criteria, and these requirements have served to limit and may continue to limit patient access to

Current wording

Payers, including healthcare insurers, PBMs, integrated healthcare delivery systems (vertically-integrated organizations built from consolidations of healthcare insurers and PBMs) and group purchasing organizations, increasingly seek ways to reduce their costs. With increasing frequency, payers are adopting benefit plan changes that shift a greater proportion of drug costs to patients. Such measures include more limited benefit plan designs, high deductible plans, higher patient co-pay or coinsurance obligations and more significant limitations on patients’ use of manufacturer commercial co-pay assistance programs. Further, government regulation of payers may affect these trends. For example, CMS finalized a policy for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2021 that has caused commercial payers to more widely adopt co-pay accumulator adjustment programs. While the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down this policy in September 2023 and further clarified in December 2023 that its ruling had the effect of reinstating the co-pay accumulator adjustment policy from 2020, CMS and HHS have signaled that they do not intend to enforce certain restrictions from the 2020 policy that would reduce the adoption of co-pay accumulator adjustment programs, and CMS has indicated that the issue will be addressed in future rulemaking. Payers, including PBMs, have sought, and continue to seek, price discounts or rebates in connection with the placement of our products on their formularies or those they manage, and to also impose restrictions on access to or usage of our products (such as Step Therapy), require that patients receive the payer’s prior authorization before covering the product, and/or chosen to exclude certain indications for which our products are approved. For example, some payers require physicians to demonstrate or document that the patients for whom Repatha has been prescribed meet their utilization criteria, and these requirements have served to limit and may continue to limit patient access to Repatha treatment. In an effort to reduce barriers to access, we reduced the net price of Repatha by providing greater discounts and rebates to payers (including PBMs that administer Medicare Part D prescription drug plans), and in response to a very high percentage of Medicare patients abandoning their Repatha prescriptions rather than paying their co-pay, we introduced a set of new National Drug Codes to make Repatha available at a lower list price. However, affordability of patient out-of-pocket co-pay cost has limited and may continue to limit patient use. Further, despite these net and list price reductions, some payers have restricted, and may continue to restrict, patient access and may seek further discounts or rebates or take other actions, such as changing formulary coverage for Repatha, that could reduce our sales of Repatha. These factors have limited, and may continue to limit, patient affordability and use, negativel…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Further, significant consolidation in the health insurance industry has resulted in a few large insurers and PBMs, which places greater pressure on pricing and usage negotiations with biopharmaceutical manufacturers, significantly increasing discount and rebate requirements and limiting patient access and usage. For example, in the United States, as of the beginning of 2024, the top five integrated health plans and PBMs controlled about 92% of all pharmacy prescriptions. This high degree of consolidation among insurers, PBMs and other payers, including integrated healthcare delivery systems and/or with specialty or mail-order pharmacies and pharmacy retailers, has increased the negotiating leverage such entities have over us and other biopharmaceutical manufacturers and has resulted in greater price discounts, rebates and service fees realized by those payers from our business. Each of CVS, Express Scripts and United Health Group (among the top five integrated health plans and PBMs) have Rebate Management Organizations that further increase their leverage to negotiate deeper discounts. Ultimately, additional discounts, rebates, fees, coverage changes, plan changes, restrictions or exclusions imposed by these commercial payers could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. Policy reforms advanced by Congress or the Administration that refine the role of PBMs in the U.S. marketplace could have downstream implications or consequences for our business and how we interact with these entities. For example, in June 2022, the FTC launched an inquiry into the business practices of PBMs and subsequently expanded the investigation to the three rebate management organizations owned by the three largest PBMs, and in July 2024, the FTC published initial findings from its investigation. In addition, multiple Congressional Committees are investigating PBM practices and have also proposed legislation that could increase transparency and reporting of these practices and/or impact rebates and service fees. The results of such inquiries could have an effect on manufacturer interactions with PBMs, resulting in changes to access for certain medicines. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors, and consolidation of private payers, such as insurers, and PBMs has negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, our business.

Current wording

Further, significant consolidation in the health insurance industry has resulted in a few large insurers and PBMs, which places greater pressure on pricing and usage negotiations with biopharmaceutical manufacturers, significantly increasing discount and rebate requirements and limiting patient access and usage. For example, in the United States, as of the beginning of 2024, the top five integrated health plans and PBMs controlled about 92% of all pharmacy prescriptions. This high degree of consolidation among insurers, PBMs and other payers, including integrated healthcare delivery systems and/or with specialty or mail-order pharmacies and pharmacy retailers, has increased the negotiating leverage such entities have over us and other biopharmaceutical manufacturers and has resulted in greater price discounts, rebates and service fees realized by those payers from our business. Each of CVS, Express Scripts and United Health Group (among the top five integrated health plans and PBMs) have Rebate Management Organizations that further increase their leverage to negotiate deeper discounts. Ultimately, additional discounts, rebates, fees, coverage changes, plan changes, restrictions or exclusions imposed by these commercial payers could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. Policy reforms advanced by Congress or the Administration that refine the role of PBMs in the U.S. marketplace could have downstream implications or consequences for our business and how we interact with these entities. For example, in June 2022, the FTC launched an inquiry into the business practices of PBMs and subsequently expanded the investigation to the three rebate management organizations owned by the three largest PBMs, and in September 2024, the FTC brought action against the three largest PBMs alleging anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices. In addition, multiple Congressional Committees are investigating PBM practices and have also proposed legislation that could increase transparency and reporting of these practices and/or impact rebates and service fees. The results of such inquiries could have an effect on manufacturer interactions with PBMs, resulting in changes to access for certain medicines. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors, and consolidation of private payers, such as insurers, and PBMs has negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, our business.

Previous wording

Our information technology systems are highly integrated into our business, including our R&D efforts, our clinical and commercial manufacturing processes and our product sales and distribution processes. Further, as the majority of our employees work remotely for some portion of their jobs in our hybrid work environment, our reliance on our and third-party information technology systems has increased substantially and is expected to continue to increase. Remote and hybrid working arrangements, including those of at many third-party providers, can increase cybersecurity risks due to the challenges associated with managing remote computing assets and security vulnerabilities that are present in many non-corporate and home networks. The complexity and interconnected nature of software, hardware and our systems make them vulnerable to breakdown or other service interruptions, and to software errors or defects, misconfiguration and other security vulnerabilities. For example, in July 2024, businesses worldwide were affected by an information technology outage due to a faulty software update issued by a cybersecurity firm. Although our systems and operations were temporarily affected by the outage, the impact of this firm’s faulty update on the Company was immaterial to our business operations. However, there can be no assurance that a future similar incident would not result in a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations. Upgrades or changes to our systems or the software that we use have resulted and we expect, in the future, will result in the introduction of new cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks. In 2022, we identified a number of security vulnerabilities introduced into our information systems as a result of flaws that we subsequently identified in software that we had purchased and installed, and these flaws required that we apply emergency patches to certain of our systems. While we did not experience any significant adverse effects as a result of these vulnerabilities, there can be no assurance that we will timely identify and address future vulnerabilities. Our systems are also subject to frequent perimeter network reconnaissance and scanning, phishing and other cyberattacks. For example, as a result of our cybersecurity monitoring of the Horizon legacy information systems, we detected phishing activity in the accounts of two Horizon executives. These accounts were de-activated, the incidents were investigated and the determination was made separately by both our internal cybersecurity team and our external digital forensics and incident response supplier that no confidential information had been exfiltrated. As the cyber-threat landscape evolves, these attacks are growing in frequency, sophistication, and intensity, and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect and increasingly sophisticated in using techniques and tools—including artificial intelligence—that circumvent security controls, evade detection and …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Our information technology systems are highly integrated into our business, including our R&D efforts, our clinical and commercial manufacturing processes and our product sales and distribution processes. Further, as the majority of our employees work remotely for some portion of their jobs in our hybrid work environment, our reliance on our and third-party information technology systems has increased substantially and is expected to continue to increase. Remote and hybrid working arrangements, including those of many third-party providers, can increase cybersecurity risks due to the challenges associated with managing remote computing assets and security vulnerabilities that are present in many non-corporate and home networks. The complexity and interconnected nature of software, hardware and our systems make them vulnerable to breakdown or other service interruptions, and to software errors or defects, misconfiguration and other security vulnerabilities. For example, in July 2024, businesses worldwide were affected by an information technology outage due to a faulty software update issued by a cybersecurity firm. Although our systems and operations were temporarily affected by the outage, the impact of this firm’s faulty update on the Company was immaterial to our business operations. However, there can be no assurance that a future similar incident would not result in a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations. Upgrades or changes to our systems or the software that we use have resulted and we expect, in the future, will result in the introduction of new cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks. In 2022, we identified a number of security vulnerabilities introduced into our information systems as a result of flaws that we subsequently identified in software that we had purchased and installed, and these flaws required that we apply emergency patches to certain of our systems. While we did not experience any significant adverse effects as a result of these vulnerabilities, there can be no assurance that we will timely identify and address future vulnerabilities. Our systems are also subject to frequent perimeter network reconnaissance and scanning, phishing and other cyberattacks. For example, as a result of our cybersecurity monitoring of the Horizon legacy information systems, we detected phishing activity in the accounts of two Horizon executives. These accounts were de-activated, the incidents were investigated and the determination was made separately by both our internal cybersecurity team and our external digital forensics and incident response supplier that no confidential information had been exfiltrated. As the cyber-threat landscape evolves, these attacks are growing in frequency, sophistication, and intensity, and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect and increasingly sophisticated in using techniques and tools—including artificial intelligence—that circumvent security controls, evade detection and rem…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Our systems also contain and use a high volume of sensitive data, including intellectual property, trade secrets and other proprietary business information, financial information, regulatory information, strategic plans, sales trends and forecasts, litigation materials and/or personal identifiable information belonging to us, our staff, our patients, customers and/or other parties. In some cases, we utilize third-party service providers to collect, process, store, manage or transmit such data, which have increased our risk. Intentional or inadvertent data privacy or security breaches (including cyberattacks) resulting from attacks or lapses by employees, service providers (including providers of information technology-specific services), business partners, nation states (including groups associated with or supported by foreign intelligence agencies), organized crime organizations, “hacktivists” or others, create risks that our sensitive data may be exposed to unauthorized persons, our competitors or the public. System vulnerabilities and/or cybersecurity breaches experienced by our third-party service providers have constituted a substantial share of the information security risks that have affected us. For example, in the first half of 2021, a supplier experienced a data breach in which an unauthorized third party acquired access to certain information provided to the supplier in the course of its provision of services to us, including business documents and certain personally identifiable patient information (not including social security or other financial or health insurance information). As required, we promptly notified the applicable state attorneys general and the individuals whose personally identifiable information was affected of this data breach at the supplier. In the third quarter of 2022, another service provider experienced a similar cybersecurity breach in which an attacker exfiltrated certain data (including non-significant Amgen data) from the service provider’s systems. Additionally, in April 2024, one of our former vendors notified us that its subsidiary that had provided us with certain patient support services until mid-2022, experienced a cybersecurity incident that it discovered in February 2024 and that data containing individually identifiable health information of over 1.7 million Amgen patients (that was retained as required by FDA regulations) was involved in the incident. Pursuant to the Health Breach Notification Rule requirements, we notified the FTC of this incident. Although these supplier data breaches have not resulted in material adverse effects on our business, there can be no assurance that a similar future cybersecurity incident would not result in a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations. Further, the timeliness of our awareness of a cybersecurity incident affects our ability to respond to and work to mitigate the severity of such events. For example, in 2020 and 2022, two of our…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Our systems also contain and use a high volume of sensitive data, including intellectual property, trade secrets and other proprietary business information, financial information, regulatory information, strategic plans, sales trends and forecasts, litigation materials and/or personal identifiable information belonging to us, our staff, our patients, customers and/or other parties. In some cases, we utilize third-party service providers to collect, process, store, manage or transmit such data, which have increased our risk. Intentional or inadvertent data privacy or security breaches (including cyberattacks) resulting from attacks or lapses by employees, service providers (including providers of information technology-specific services), business partners, nation states (including groups associated with or supported by foreign intelligence agencies), organized crime organizations, “hacktivists” or others, create risks that our sensitive data may be exposed to unauthorized persons, our competitors or the public. Malicious actors, including those working under state-sponsored campaigns, have sought employment, often in remote information technology roles, as a means to gain inside access at targeted companies. In the third quarter of 2024, an individual used fraudulent identification in connection with their hiring by the Company. While the individual was detected and terminated before any data was extracted or malware installed, there can be no assurance that future attempts by similar actors will be unsuccessful. System vulnerabilities and/or cybersecurity breaches experienced by our third-party service providers have constituted a substantial share of the information security risks that have affected us. For example, in the first half of 2021, a supplier experienced a data breach in which an unauthorized third party acquired access to certain information provided to the supplier in the course of its provision of services to us, including business documents and certain personally identifiable patient information (not including social security or other financial or health insurance information). As required, we promptly notified the applicable state attorneys general and the individuals whose personally identifiable information was affected of this data breach at the supplier. In the third quarter of 2022, another service provider experienced a similar cybersecurity breach in which an attacker exfiltrated certain data (including non-significant Amgen data) from the service provider’s systems. Additionally, in April 2024, one of our former vendors notified us that its subsidiary that had provided us with certain patient support services until mid-2022, experienced a cybersecurity incident that it discovered in February 2024 and that data containing individually identifiable health information of over 1.7 million Amgen patients (that was retained as required by FDA regulations) was involved in the incident. Pursuant to the Health Breach Notification…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

(1)In May 2024, the Company purchased 312 shares at an average price paid of $307.31 per share from a staff member to satisfy federal law compliance obligations. These shares were not repurchased under our stock repurchase program.

Current wording

(1)In August 2024, the Company purchased 913 shares at an average price paid of $328.80 per share from a staff member to satisfy federal law compliance obligations. These shares were not repurchased under our stock repurchase program.