Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

This report and other documents we file with the SEC contain forward-looking statements that are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about us, our future performance, our business, our beliefs and our management’s assumptions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties our business faces. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Our business is also subject to the risks that affect many other companies, such as employment relations, general economic conditions, geopolitical events and international operations. Further, additional risks not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may in the future materially and adversely affect our business, operations, liquidity and stock price.

Below we provide in supplemental form the material changes to our risk factors that occurred during the past quarter. Our risk factors disclosed in Part I, Item 1A, of our Annual Report, on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, provide additional disclosure for these supplemental risks and are incorporated herein by reference.

Our sales depend on coverage and reimbursement from government and commercial third-party payers, and pricing and reimbursement pressures have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, our profitability.

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. These 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 whom 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 legislation promulgated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) that enables the U.S. government to impose penalties if drug prices are increased at a rate faster than inflation, redesigns Medicare Part D benefits to shift a greater portion of the costs to manufacturers and allows for the U.S. government to set prices for certain drugs in Medicare. Other proposals include limiting drug reimbursement in Medicare and/or the commercial market based on reference prices, or permitting importation of drugs from Canada. Certain proposals focused on drug pricing (such as the IRA) have been adopted, and additional proposals are likely to be adopted and implemented in some form.

—Changing U.S. federal coverage and reimbursement policies and practices have affected and may continue to affect access to, pricing of and sales of our products

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, 2021. Our business has been and will continue to be affected by legislative actions changing U.S. federal reimbursement policy. Congress has focused on drug pricing reforms and oversight since 2018, and this activity is still ongoing and has intensified. For example, in August 2022, the IRA was enacted and includes provisions requiring that: (1) 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 approximately one hundred drugs could be subject to such set prices by 2031); (2) Medicare Part D be redesigned to cap beneficiary out-of-pocket costs starting in 2024 and, beginning January 1, 2025, reduce Federal reinsurance in the catastrophic phase (resulting in a shift and increase of such costs to Part D plans and manufacturers, including by requiring discounts from manufacturers on certain drugs); and (3) beginning October 1, 2022, manufacturers will owe rebates on drugs reimbursed under Medicare Part D if price increases outpace inflation, and beginning in January 1, 2023, will owe rebates on drugs reimbursed

under Medicare Part B if price increases outpace inflation. The IRA’s drug pricing controls and Medicare redesign is likely to have a material adverse effect on our sales (particularly for our products that are more substantially reliant on Medicare reimbursement), our business and our results of operations. However, as the degree of impact from this legislation on our business depends on a number of implementation decisions, the extent of the IRA’s impact on our sales and, in turn, our business remains unclear. Further, following the passage of the IRA, the environment remains dynamic, and in October 2022, the Administration issued an Executive Order on Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans that calls for the HHS to issue a report within 90 days on Innovation Center models that would lower drug costs and promote access to innovative drug therapies for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

There are other outstanding proposals that, if enacted and implemented, in whole or in part, could also affect access to and sales of our products, including, but not limited to, federal and various state proposals to allow importation of prescription medications from Canada or other countries. See —Changing reimbursement and pricing actions in various states have negatively affected and may continue to negatively affect access to and have affected and may continue to affect sales of our products. In July 2021, the Administration issued an Executive Order designed to address anticompetitive behavior across multiple sectors, and for the healthcare sector, called for, among other things, the FDA to work with states and Indian tribes to develop prescription drug importation programs, more scrutiny of anticompetitive activity by the FTC, emphasized the need for actions to allow for greater competition from generics and biosimilars, and included a process and timeline for federal agencies to deliver to the Administration ideas that address drug pricing. Subsequently, in September 2021, the HHS released a report that presented guiding principles for the Administration’s drug pricing proposals, including changes to promote competition throughout the prescription drug industry, highlighting potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue (including drug price negotiation in Medicare Parts B and D, making those negotiated prices available to commercial plans and legislation to speed the entry of biosimilar and generic drugs) and examples of potential administrative tools available to the HHS (including testing various models and enhanced focus of the FTC and the USPTO to address impediments to generic drug and biosimilar competition). Also, in response to the July 2021 Executive Order, the FDA sent a letter to the USPTO describing ways to strengthen coordination between the two agencies, offering training to help identify prior art and seeking USPTO’s views on practices that extend market exclusivities, whether pharmaceutical patent examiners need additional resources, and the effect of post-grant challenges at the PTAB on drug patents. In its reply to the FDA, on July 6, 2022, the USPTO affirmed its interest in coordinating with the FDA and outlined specific initiatives, including enhancing procedures for obtaining patents and easing the process for challenging issued patents before the PTAB.

Legislation enacted in 2021 also contained drug pricing reforms. For example, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision requiring manufacturers to provide refunds, beginning in 2023, to the government for discarded amounts of certain drugs (including certain Amgen products) from single use containers under Medicare Part B, and CMS recently released proposed regulations to implement this requirement. Also, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 includes a provision that increases the Medicaid rebate liability, beginning in 2024, by no longer capping Medicaid rebates at 100% of the Average Manufacturer Price for certain medicines that raise prices in excess of inflation. The implementation of a final rule issued by the HHS that revises regulations under the federal antikickback statute to encourage PBMs to use rebates received from biopharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce patient cost-sharing at the point of sale under Medicare Part D has been delayed to January 1, 2032.

Our business has been, and is expected to continue to be, affected by changes in U.S. federal reimbursement policy resulting from federal regulations and federal demonstration projects. Over the past several years, federal agencies, including the CMS, announced a number of recommendations, policies, proposals and demonstration projects addressing drug pricing. The Administration has also developed and sought to advance a range of policy proposals that could affect U.S. federal reimbursement policy for drugs and biologics, including changes to Medicare Parts B and D. For example, in 2020, in response to an Executive Order, HHS released a rule to allow states to potentially enable the importation of certain drugs from Canada. This rule is in litigation, but should such litigation be unsuccessful, it could allow for the importation of Canadian versions of certain of Amgen’s products (including Otezla), that could have a material adverse effect on Amgen’s business. Also in response to an Executive Order, CMS previously released an interim final rule to implement the MFN pricing approach aimed at setting the reimbursement rate for 50 Medicare Part B drugs (including our products, such as Prolia, XGEVA, KYPROLIS, Neulasta, Nplate, EPOGEN and Aranesp) equal to the lowest adjusted price in 22 OECD nations for these drugs. In December 2021, subsequent to challenges, including procedural defects, CMS withdrew the MFN rule. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the rule, the MFN rule’s approach to drug pricing and other similar approaches remain of interest to policymakers. In connection with its withdrawal of the MFN rule, CMS noted that it will “… explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B drugs, improve beneficiaries’ access to evidence-based care, and reduce drug spending for consumers and throughout the health care system.” We expect continued significant focus on healthcare and similar drug pricing proposals for the foreseeable future. Our business is also affected by policies implemented by private healthcare entities that process Medicare claims, including Medicare Administrative Contractors. For example, in the second quarter of 2022, several Medicare Administrative Contractors issued notice, in contravention of TEZSPIRE’s FDA approved labeling, that TEZSPIRE would be added to their “self-administered drug” exclusion lists. Although the Medicare Administrative Contractors

subsequently removed TEZSPIRE from their exclusion lists, these exclusions, if reintroduced and/or implemented, would result in Medicare beneficiaries with severe asthma losing access to TEZSPIRE coverage under Medicare Part B and potentially also under Medicare Advantage.

CMS policy changes and demonstration projects to test new care, delivery and payment models can also significantly affect how drugs, including our products, are covered and reimbursed. For example, we believe that CMS’s Oncology Care Model demonstration (which has, beginning in 2016, provided participating physician practices with performance-based financial incentives that aim to manage or reduce Medicare costs without negatively affecting the efficacy of care) reduced utilization of certain of our oncology products by participating physician practices. While the Oncology Care Model demonstration ended on June 30, 2022, CMS announced a new oncology model (the Enhancing Oncology Model) that will run for five years (from July 2023 through June 2028) that builds on this prior demonstration program. Further, the HHS’s September 2021 comprehensive plan to address drug pricing included potential future mandatory models that link payment for prescription drugs and biologics to factors such as: improved patient outcomes, reductions in health disparities, patient affordability and lower overall costs; bundled payment models; total cost of care models; models in which Medicare Part B savings from utilization of biosimilars, generics or other high-value products are shared between prescribing providers and the government; additional Medicare Part D cost-sharing support for biosimilars and generics; and potential expansion of the Part D Senior Savings Model to additional classes of drugs. CMS also recently finalized a national Medicare coverage determination for certain Alzheimer’s disease medications that received accelerated FDA approvals that limits coverage to only patients in qualifying clinical trials, thereby suggesting that accelerated regulatory approval does not necessarily result in full Medicare coverage. Further, pressures on healthcare budgets from the pandemic and the economic downturn remain. We are unable to predict which or how many federal policy, legislative, regulatory, executive or administrative changes may ultimately be, or effectively estimate the consequences to our business if, enacted and implemented. However, to the extent that these or other federal government initiatives further decrease or modify the coverage or reimbursement available for our products, require that we pay increased rebates or shift other costs to us, limit or affect our decisions regarding the pricing of or otherwise reduce the use of our U.S. products, or limit our ability to offer co-pay assistance to commercial patients, such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We also face risks related to the reporting of pricing data that affects reimbursement of and discounts provided for our products. U.S. government price reporting regulations are complex and may require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to update certain previously submitted data. If our submitted pricing data are incorrect, we may become subject to substantial fines and penalties or other government enforcement actions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, as a result of restating previously reported price data, we may be required to pay additional rebates and provide additional discounts. The prior Administration finalized a rule (the implementation of which has been delayed by the current Administration) mandating price and cost-sharing transparency for almost all health plans and insurers in the individual and group commercial markets. Further, the current Administration finalized transparency provisions required under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 for health plans and insurer reporting of certain drug pricing information by December 27, 2022, and each June thereafter, resulting in a biennial public report highlighting drug pricing trends and the impact of prescription drug costs on premiums and out-of-pocket costs. It is unclear how group health plans and health insurers may respond.

—Changing reimbursement and pricing actions in various states have negatively affected and may continue to negatively affect access to and have affected and may continue to affect sales of our products

At the state level, government actions or 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, drug importation programs or 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. For example, a California law requires biopharmaceutical manufacturers to notify health insurers and government health plans at least 60 days before scheduled prescription drug price increases that exceed certain thresholds. Similar laws exist in Oregon and Washington. Additional proposals directed at Medicaid seek to penalize manufacturers for price increases above a certain threshold or limit spending on biopharmaceutical products. States are also seeking to change the way they pay for drugs for patients covered by state programs. California adopted a 2020–21 budget that incorporates international pricing into Medicaid supplemental rebate negotiations and allows its Medicaid program to seek federal approval to extend supplemental rebates to non-Medicaid populations. New York has established a Medicaid drug spending cap, and Massachusetts implemented a new review and supplemental rebate negotiation process. Six states (Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, Oregon and Washington) have enacted laws that establish Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) to study drug prices and identify drugs that pose affordability challenges, and in three states (Colorado, Maryland and Washington) include authority for the state PDAB to set upper payment limits on certain drugs in state regulated plans. Other states may consider implementing similar policies and procedures as they face budget deficits from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Vermont have enacted laws, and several other states have proposed bills, to implement importation of drugs from Canada. The FDA recently met with representatives from Colorado, Florida, Maine and New Mexico to discuss those states’ proposed importation programs, and the FDA may be working towards approving such plans. Other states could adopt similar approaches or could pursue different policy changes in a continuing effort to reduce their costs. Ultimately, as with U.S. federal government actions, existing or future state government actions or ballot initiatives may also have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

—U.S. commercial payer actions have affected and may continue to affect access to and sales of our products

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 in May 2020 (for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2021, which remains standing policy for 2022) that is subject to litigation and has caused commercial payers to more widely adopt co-pay accumulator adjustment programs. Payers 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, particularly in treatment areas in which the payer has taken the position that multiple branded products are therapeutically comparable. Payers also control costs by imposing restrictions on access to or usage of our products, such as Step Therapy, or requiring that patients receive the payer’s prior authorization before covering the product or that patients use a mail-order pharmacy or a limited network of payer fully-owned mail-order or specialty pharmacies. Payers have also chosen to exclude certain indications for which our products are approved or chosen to exclude coverage entirely. For example, some payers require physicians to demonstrate or document that the patients for whom Repatha has been prescribed meet payer utilization management 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. However, affordability of patient out-of-pocket co-pay cost has limited and may continue to limit patient use. For example, in late 2018 and early 2019, 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 in an attempt to address affordability for patients, particularly those on Medicare, and on December 31, 2019, we discontinued the higher list price option for Repatha. Despite these net and list price reductions, some payers have restricted and may continue to restrict patient access, and have changed and may continue to change formulary coverage for Repatha, and they may seek further discounts or rebates or take other actions that could reduce our sales of Repatha. These factors have served to limit and may continue to limit patient affordability and use, and negatively affect Repatha sales.

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 2021, the top five integrated health plans and PBMs controlled about 85% of all pharmacy prescriptions. The consolidation among insurers, PBMs and other payers, including through 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. In 2019, 2020 and 2021, CVS, Express Scripts and United Health Group, respectively, each created Rebate Management Organizations that further increase their respective 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, on June 7, 2022, the FTC launched an inquiry into the business practices of PBMs, and the results of such inquiry could have an effect on manufacturer interactions with PBMs, resulting in changes to access to certain medicines. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors and at one free-standing dialysis clinic business and consolidation of private payers may negatively affect our business.

—Government and commercial payer actions outside the United States have affected and will continue to affect access to and sales of our products

Outside the United States, we expect countries will also continue to take actions to reduce their drug expenditures. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

Pressures to decrease drug expenditures may further intensify as economic conditions continue to worsen in certain regions, including in Europe where high inflation and the energy crisis relating to the Russia–Ukraine conflict are challenging the economies in that region. IRP has been widely used by many countries outside the United States to control costs based on an external benchmark of a product’s price in other countries. IRP policies can change quickly and frequently and may not reflect differences in the burden of disease, indications, market structures or affordability differences across countries or regions. Other expenditure control practices, including but not limited to the use of revenue clawbacks, rebates and percentage caps on price increases, are used in various foreign jurisdictions as well. In addition, countries may refuse to reimburse or may restrict the reimbursed population for a product when their national health technology assessments do not consider a medicine to demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit beyond existing therapies or to meet certain cost effectiveness thresholds. For example, despite the European Medicines Agency’s approval of Repatha for the treatment of patients with established atherosclerotic disease, the reimbursement for Repatha in France prior to 2020 was limited to a narrower patient population (such as those with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH)) following a national health technology assessment, which had limited our efforts in France to expand Repatha access to the broader patient population covered by the approved label. Some countries decide on reimbursement between potentially competing products through national or regional tenders that often result in one product receiving most or all of the sales in that country or region. Failure to obtain coverage and reimbursement for our products, a deterioration in their existing coverage and reimbursement or a decline in the timeliness or certainty of payment by payers to physicians and other providers has negatively affected, and may further negatively affect, the ability or willingness of healthcare providers to prescribe our products for their patients and otherwise negatively affect the use of our products or the prices we realize for them. Such changes have had, and could in the future have, a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

During the three months ended September 30, 2022, we had one outstanding stock repurchase program, under which the repurchase activity was as follows:

(1) As part of the stock repurchase program, the Company entered into ASR agreements with three third-party financial institutions (Dealers) in February 2022. Upon execution of the ASR agreements, the Company made payments in an aggregate amount of $6.0 billion to the Dealers and received and retired an initial 23,258,997 shares of common stock. During September 2022, an additional 1,525,403 shares were received from the Dealers which constituted final settlement under the ASR agreements, and no cash was exchanged as a result of the final settlement. In total, 24,784,400 shares of common stock were delivered under the ASR agreements at an average price of approximately $242.09 per share.

(2) In October 2022, the Board of Directors increased the amount authorized under the repurchase program by an additional $2.4 billion.