Predictions that the Government will fund measures to support elderly care from within the NHS have been reported.

The Government’s imminent white paper on social care for elderly and disabled people is expected to support the £2.2bn Dilnot proposals for reducing the financial burden on service users.

While the white paper is not expected to state how these changes will be funded, the Financial Times reports a growing belief that the NHS budget will be required to provide the extra cash.

Health service planners predict that the NHS budget will be boosted before the next election and then ‘raided’ for the Dilnot money after it.

In a Government-commissioned review, economist Andrew Dilnot proposed measures to enable more elderly and disabled people to afford residential care.

He recommended that the money paid by individuals for residential care should be both capped and more supportively means-tested.

The white paper is expected to support these proposals, capping individual spend at £35,000 and raising the means-tested threshold for contributions from £23,250 to £100,000.

However, a decision on how the £2.2bn annual cost will be funded is expected to be deferred.

Treasury aides described the prediction that it will come out of a briefly increased NHS budget as “hypothetical” and “without foundation”.

However, it is consistent with Andrew Lansley’s warning in 2010 that NHS funding would be progressively spread into meeting social care needs.

Human Genome Sciences’ (HGS) decision to reject GSK’s $2.59 billion acquisition offer highlights the future potential biotech companies believe they possess, analysts have said.

HGS rebuked GSK’s $13 per share offer and have now instructed Wall Street advisors to try and find other potential bidders, sources claim.

Paul Chapman, Partner at Marks & Clerk LLP, said the “stark dismissal” of GSK’s offer shows how biotech companies “value their portfolios and pipelines, and how much potential they see for the future”.

GSK’s offer was an 81% premium on the closing price of HGS’ stock on 18 April, the Financial Times reported. Its stock was as high as $30 per share around a year ago. But prices fell after the disappointing launch of its lupus drug – in partnership with GSK – Benlysta.

A statement from HSG said that the billion dollar offer from GSK does not reflect the company’s value – despite its high premium. Ana Nicholls, a healthcare analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit, agrees.

She commented: “HGS’ decision to turn down the offer, which it says doesn't reflect its true value, suggests that it thinks it can get a better offer, either from GSK or elsewhere. It may be right. HGS’ two late-stage pipeline drugs, for diabetes and cardiovascular disease, have plenty of potential in large markets.”

The rejection of GSK’s offer comes a matter of days after Roche indicated it was considering abandoning its £6.8bn hostile bid for Illumina. Paul Chapman expects to see more takeover bids by pharmaceutical companies of biotech and biopharma firms in the future. “Major players in the pharmaceutical industries are in a bind,” he said. “The patent cliff is approaching fast and existing pipelines in more traditional areas of R&D seem insufficient to replace lost revenue. They need to rejuvenate pipelines and absorbing smaller, promising biotech firms is an attractive way of doing so.

“It could be that the likes of HGS and Illumina are quite aware of the advantageous position they are in, and are playing their hand accordingly. Glaxo can afford to return with a revised offer, the question is will they?”

Investors at AstraZeneca have called for the pharmaceutical company’s board and executive team to be changed and a new business strategy introduced.

AZ has been trading on the lowest price/earning multiple across the sector, which has led to several major investors in the company calling for Chief Executive David Brennan (pictured) to be replaced.

Speaking to the Financial Times, one investor said Mr Brennan is “under intense pressure”.

The company’s board of directors already looks set to change with Leif Johansson seeking formal election as chairman at AZ’s AGM later this month.

Some of the company’s top 20 investors have suggested replacing David Brennan with current Finance Director, Simon Lowth.

Whilst some have questioned Mr Lowth’s experience, Tony Zook, Global Commercial Vice President, has also been suggested as a replacement for Mr Brennan – who is expected to vacate his position when he turns 60 next year.

But Jack Scannell, analyst at Bernstein Research, said AZ should avoid a “lawyer or a marketing person” taking over. “You either need Attila the Hun – a total butcher – to run it down until it can be bought, or a Paul Janssen-like figure: a successful scientist who can really take on the research team,” he said.

The analyst revealed that Bernstein Research expects AstraZeneca to complete a mid-sized acquisition after a note on the matter said “the status quo is not sustainable” and that “desperate times may lead to outwardly appearing desperate actions.”

However, another shareholder told the FT that any new acquisitions were “unthinkable” at present until the company’s senior management team had been reshuffled to develop a new credible strategy for the group.

Watson Pharmaceuticals is reportedly in talks with Actavis to acquire the company in a deal worth in the region of $7 billion.

Various sources have claimed the two generic firms are in discussions regarding a deal which would see Watson increase its presence in Central and Eastern Europe.

Although neither company would comment on the reports, Paul Bisaro, Watson CEO, recently said if the right “generic-focused large transaction presented itself, it would help us expand our footprint globally”.

Swiss-based Actavis, which enjoyed turnover in 2011 of around €1.9bn, expects that figure to rise to approximately €2.10bn this year.

News agency Reuters first reported on the discussions between two generic firms. The Financial Times then quoted an individual with ‘knowledge of the talks’ who said that discussions had been ongoing for the past four months.

The Wall Street Journal claimed a source had commented that an agreement after Easter was likely, with Bloomberg adding a source informed them there were no other suitors at present.

Chris Schott, an analyst at JP Morgan, issued a research note which said a future takeover of Actavis “would give Watson the scale it needs to complete globally”.

“We see little in the way of antitrust hurdles to completing the deal as the companies’ European businesses have little overlap, and overlap with the companies’ US businesses appears manageable,” he said.

Watson saw sales increase by more than a quarter last year (29%) to $4.58 billion.

Several large pharmaceutical companies have paid US physicians nearly $150m this year, according to analysis by the Financial Times.

Industry data into the controversial marketing and support practices found that $148m has been given to 165,000 doctors so far, including $48m from Eli Lilly and $42m from Pfizer.

A spokesperson for Lilly said the “collaboration with healthcare providers is essential” to improve outcomes for patients and to provide innovative medicines.

In the UK, the ABPI recently changed its Code of Practice meaning companies now have to declare payments to healthcare professionals for their services from 2013 in an attempt to increase transparency. Government agencies in the US are currently finalising similar guidelines as part of the healthcare reforms.

The analysis by the Financial Times, in conjunction with PharmaShine, is designed to allow health authorities, medical institutions and patients better scrutinise and understand the links between doctors and pharma.

But the way current disclosures are made and presented varies and makes comparisons and analysis difficult for both authorities and patients alike.

Allan Coukell, Head of the Pew Prescription Project – a US drug safety watchdog – says that healthcare professionals and the industry needs to work together for research purposes, “but the marketing model is problematic”.

“The first step is transparency and we are not even there yet,” he added.

Research found that collectively the industry paid $437m to 262,000 doctors in 2010. Among the physicians who received the highest level of support was Dr Zale Bernstein, an Associate Professor from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York. Dr Bernstein received $234,000 in 2010 from Cephalon, Eli Lilly and Pfizer and has already received more than $57,000 already this year.

Although the majority of doctors received smaller sums, studies have suggested even modest support by pharma can affect prescribing practices.