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, 2022, 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. Further, pressures on healthcare budgets from the pandemic, 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 legislation promulgated by the IRA 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. 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. Government actions or ballot initiatives at the state level also represent a highly active area of policymaking and experimentation, including pursuit of proposals that limit drug reimbursement under state run Medicaid programs based on reference prices or permitting importation of drugs from Canada. Such state policies may also eventually be adopted at the federal level.

We are unable to predict which or how many policy, regulatory, administrative or legislative changes may ultimately be, or effectively estimate the consequences to our business if, enacted and implemented. However, to the extent that payer actions 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 products, such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

—Changing U.S. federal coverage and reimbursement policies and practices have affected and are likely to 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, 2022. 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: (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 by 2031 approximately 100 drugs could be subject to such set prices); (2) starting in 2024, Medicare Part D be redesigned to cap beneficiary out-of-pocket costs and, beginning January 1, 2025, Federal reinsurance 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); and (3) beginning October 1, 2022, manufacturers will owe rebates on drugs reimbursed under Medicare Part D if price increases outpace inflation, and beginning 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, our business and our results of operations, and such impact is expected to increase through the end of the decade and will depend on factors including the extent of our portfolio’s exposure to Medicare reimbursement, the rate of inflation over time, the number of our products selected for mandatory price setting and the timing of market entry of generic or biosimilar competition. Further, following the passage of the IRA, the environment remains dynamic, and in February 2023, the HHS selected new healthcare payment and delivery models for testing, in response to an October 2022 Executive Order on Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans, including the Accelerating Clinical Evidence Model, which could introduce new payment methods that reduce reimbursement for drugs approved under accelerated approval. That Executive Order followed a 2021 Executive Order designed to increase competition in the healthcare sector, including by calling for the FDA to develop prescription drug importation programs and the FTC to apply greater scrutiny of anticompetitive activity and responses to which include actions from the HHS (which released a report with drug pricing proposals that seek to promote competition) and from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (which has taken steps to strengthen coordination with the FDA to address impediments to generic drug and biosimilar competition). Other 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. In September 2021, HHS released a plan to address drug pricing that included potential future mandatory models that link payment for prescription drugs and biologics to certain factors, including the overall cost of care. In March 2023, the Administration released its budget plan for fiscal year 2024 that included proposals to expand the number of drugs subject to mandatory price setting under Medicare, imposing such price setting activity earlier, and extending to commercial health insurance the requirement that drug manufacturers pay rebates if price increases outpace inflation. While the Administration’s budget plan remains subject to Congressional review and implementation, this expansion of drug pricing controls and Medicare redesigns introduced by the IRA through this budget proposal demonstrates that this area continues to be a focus of the Administration.

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.

—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 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. 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 pricing drugs 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. 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. Following the passage of the IRA, legislators in Nevada and Minnesota have proposed laws that would apply the drug price caps set by HHS for Medicare to drug prices statewide, including commercial health insurance. Other states may consider implementing similar policies and laws. 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 has 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 for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2021 that has caused commercial payers to more widely adopt 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 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, negatively affecting 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 2023, the top five integrated health plans and PBMs controlled about 92% of all pharmacy prescriptions. This high degree of consolidation among insurers and 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 from our business. Each of CVS, Express Scripts and United Health Group (among the top five integrated health plans and PBMs), each 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, 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 for certain medicines. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors and consolidation of private payers may negatively affect our business.

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.

—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 and to reduce intellectual property protections. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022. Pressures to decrease drug expenditures may further intensify as the COVID-19 pandemic has strained government budgets and 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.

International reference pricing 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. International reference pricing 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, prior to 2020, the reimbursement of Repatha in France was limited to a narrower patient population (such as those with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH)) following a national health technology assessment. Many 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.

Our efforts to collaborate with or acquire other companies, products, or technology, and to integrate the operations of companies or to support the products or technology we have acquired, may not be successful, and may result in unanticipated costs, delays or failures to realize the benefits of the transactions.

We seek innovation through significant investment in both internal R&D and external transactions, including collaborations, partnerships, alliances, licenses, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions (collectively, acquisition activity). Acquisition activities may be subject to regulatory approvals or other requirements that are not within our control. There can be no assurance that such regulatory or other approvals will be obtained or that all closing conditions required in connection with our acquisition activities will be satisfied or waived, which could result in us being unable to complete the planned acquisition activities. For example, with respect to our proposed acquisition of Horizon, the Company and Horizon each received a request for additional information and documentary materials from the FTC, and the FTC could make similar further requests in connection with its review of the proposed acquisition. In addition, antitrust scrutiny by regulatory agencies and changes to regulatory approval process in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions may cause approvals to take longer than anticipated to obtain, not be obtained at all, or contain burdensome conditions, which may jeopardize, delay or reduce the anticipated benefits of acquisitions to us and could impede the execution of our business strategy.

Acquisition activities are complex, time consuming and expensive and may result in unanticipated costs, delays or other operational or financial problems related to integrating the acquired company and business with our company, which may divert our management’s attention from other business issues and opportunities and restrict the full realization of the anticipated benefits of such transactions within the expected timeframe or at all. We may pay substantial amounts of cash, incur debt or issue equity securities to pay for acquisition activities, which could adversely affect our liquidity or result in dilution to our stockholders, respectively. For example, the funds received from our $24 billion of senior notes issued on March 2, 2023, together with our $4 billion term loan facility, are expected to be among our primary sources of payment for the proposed acquisition of Horizon. Further, failures or difficulties in integrating or retaining new personnel or in integrating the operations of the businesses, products or assets we acquire (including related technology, commercial operations, compliance programs, manufacturing, distribution and general business operations and procedures and ESG activities) may affect our ability to realize the benefits of the transaction and grow our business and may result in us incurring asset impairment or restructuring charges. These and other challenges may arise in connection with our acquisitions of Otezla, Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc., Teneobio, Inc., ChemoCentryx, Horizon and/or our collaborations with BeiGene and Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., or with other acquisition activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and stock price.

Global economic conditions may negatively affect us and may magnify certain risks that affect our business.

Our operations and performance have been, and may continue to be, affected by global economic conditions. The economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a global recession, which was followed by high rates of inflation and actions taken by financial regulators to raise interest rates. Recent instability in the financial system and tighter lending standards are likely to generate additional stress and vulnerabilities in the global economy. These conditions have cumulatively led to regional and/or global macroeconomic challenges, the effects of which may be of an extended duration. Further, acute rising energy costs may further adversely affect productivity and economic conditions, particularly in Europe. The availability of governmental monetary and fiscal tools to address the financial crisis may also be limited as a result of political divisions in Congress, including any impasse on raising the debt ceiling which could result in a government shutdown. Additionally, with higher interest rates, governments may be unable to sustain their previously high levels of fiscal spending

and deficits. Consequently, these and other financial pressures have caused, and may continue to cause, government or other third-party payers to more aggressively seek cost containment measures in healthcare and other settings. See 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. As a result of global economic conditions, some third-party payers may delay or be unable to satisfy their reimbursement obligations. Job losses or other economic hardships (including inflation) may also affect patients’ ability to afford healthcare as a result of increased co-pay or deductible obligations, greater cost sensitivity to existing co-pay or deductible obligations, lost healthcare insurance coverage or for other reasons. We believe such conditions have led and could continue to lead to reduced demand for our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. The current inflationary environment related to increased aggregate demand, supply chain constraints and the effects from the armed conflict in Ukraine (including the effects of the sanctions that were implemented in response to the conflict and the resulting impacts on the commodity market and supply chains) have also increased our operating expenses and may continue to affect our operating expenses. Our operational costs, including the cost of energy, materials, labor, distribution and our other operational and facilities costs are subject to market conditions and are being adversely affected by inflationary pressures. Economic conditions may also adversely affect the ability of our distributors, customers and suppliers to obtain the liquidity required to buy inventory or raw materials and to perform their obligations under agreements with us, which could disrupt our operations. Although we monitor our distributors’, customers’ and suppliers’ financial condition and their liquidity to mitigate our business risks, some of our distributors, customers and suppliers may become insolvent, which could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. A significant worsening of global economic conditions could precipitate or materially amplify the other risks described herein.

We maintain a significant portfolio of investments disclosed as cash equivalents and marketable securities on our consolidated balance sheets. The global spread of COVID-19, and more recently, interest rate increases, have also led to disruption and volatility in the global capital markets. We have certain assets, including equity investments, that are exposed to market fluctuations that could, in a sustained or recurrent series of market disruptions, result in impairments. The value of our investments may also be adversely affected by interest rate fluctuations, inflation, downgrades in credit ratings, illiquidity in the capital markets and other factors that may result in other-than-temporary declines in the value of our investments. Any of those events could cause us to record impairment charges with respect to our investment portfolio or to realize losses on sales of investments. We also maintain a majority of our cash and cash equivalents in accounts with major multi-national financial institutions, and our deposits at these institutions exceed insured limits. Market conditions can adversely affect the viability of these institutions. In the event of failure of any of the financial institutions where we maintain our cash and cash equivalents, there can be no assurance that we would be able to access uninsured funds in a timely manner or at all. Inability to access, or a delay in accessing these funds, could adversely affect our business and financial position.

During the three months ended March 31, 2023, we had one outstanding stock repurchase program, under which the repurchase activity was as follows:

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