Get PJ Media on your Apple

CEO Salaries and Pharmaceutical Costs

How much do CEO and other top exec salaries add to the cost of drugs?

by
Clayton E. Cramer

Bio

November 19, 2011 - 12:49 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

I had a conversation recently with someone who was quite upset about how much money pharmaceutical companies spend on CEO compensation — at a time when many people are not able to afford necessary medicines.

While I do not support restricting or limiting compensation, I also often scratch my head and ask, “Does it really make sense for a corporation to give someone tens of millions a year to run a company?”  Beyond a certain point, there’s no useful way to spend the extra money.  Someone who gets $30,000,000 in a year is grossing more than $82,000 per day, or $575,342 per week.  How many steaks can you eat, how many vacations can you take, how many homes can you occupy, how many Ferraris can you drive?

Still, I thought it would be interesting to see how much pharmaceutical makers are spending on CEO compensation, and if this might be a factor in the costs of lifesaving pharmaceuticals. Forbes keeps track of the top 400 CEO compensation packages for American corporations.  Pharmaceutical company CEOs are NOT unusually highly paid.  There are a few pharmaceutical CEOs in the top 100, but only a few.  By comparison, other sectors, such as health care, communications, entertainment, consumer products, and stuff of questionable actual value, are more common in the top 100 list. UnitedHealth Group’s CEO is the top: $101,960,000.

When I started digging into the details of these compensation packages, however, I noticed something very interesting, of which David E. I. Pyott of Allergan (a drug company) is pretty typical: The vast majority of the compensation is stock gains, not salary or bonuses. Of Pyott’s $33.76 million compensation, $30.64 million was stock gains — not salary, bonuses, or other forms of direct compensation. In practice, this means that what the company actually wrote him checks for was about $3 million; the rest is the result of stock option grants.

This is partly because of a law the Democrats passed in the 1990s that prohibits corporations from deducting as business expenses any CEO or other top officer salaries that exceeds $1 million a year. Before this law, most corporate officer compensation was salary; afterwards, it was typically stock options, which I am afraid may have encouraged a more short-term view of appropriate corporate governance.

Click here to view the 44 legacy comments

Comments are closed.