If a drug keeps selling better, should the company's profits keep improving too?
Usually they do. But when a company is selling medicines while also spending money to acquire research projects for the next generation of drugs, its financial statements can present an apparent contradiction: it expects to sell more medicines this year, yet expects to earn slightly less per share than it previously forecast.
That combination appeared in Lilly's third-quarter results, released on October 29. It offers a useful way to understand the challenges between a drug's scientific success and its commercial success.
Selling more, at lower realized prices
Lilly reported third-quarter revenue of approximately $24.4 billion, up 39% from a year earlier. Mounjaro and Zepbound, in diabetes and weight management, remained the main drivers. The company also reported volume growth of 53% and a 15% decline in realized prices.[1]
This “price decline” does not mean that every price patients see at a pharmacy fell by 15%. The money a manufacturer ultimately receives also depends on discounts, rebates, and the mix of sales across markets. A company-wide price change cannot simply be applied to every individual drug.
A simplified example helps explain the relationship between volume and price. Suppose a shop originally sold 100 items and received 100 yuan for each, generating 10,000 yuan in total revenue. Later, it receives only 90 yuan per item but sells 150 items. Total revenue still rises to 13,500 yuan.
This is not how Lilly's financial results were calculated. It simply shows how lower revenue per item and growth in total revenue can occur together.
For medicines, broader coverage and more affordable prices may both help expand use. But another question remains: can the additional volume continue to offset pressure on prices?
If prices remain under pressure while volume growth slows, the company's growth will be affected. How long patients continue treatment, and how long payers are willing to cover it, also matter. It will take time to establish whether enormous potential demand translates into sustained treatment and sustained revenue.
The $24.4 billion includes different kinds of revenue
Lilly specifically noted that quarterly revenue included approximately $900 million in favorable effects, primarily from a milestone payment and favorable adjustments to rebate and discount estimates.[1]
A “milestone payment” is money that one partner agrees in advance to pay another when a specified condition is met. Depending on the contract, that condition may concern progress in research, approval, or sales.
Adjustments to rebate and discount estimates concern how a drug company recognizes its final revenue. When medicines are sold, the company must estimate certain rebates or discounts it will need to pay later. As more information becomes available, those estimates may change, affecting the revenue recognized in the current period.
These are distinctions readers need to make when examining financial statements. An estimate adjustment does not by itself establish that something is wrong with the revenue. Equally, we cannot assume that this quarter's favorable effects will recur.
It is a little like a household whose income rises this year through both a salary increase and a one-time bonus. Both are real income, but we usually consider them separately when planning next year's fixed expenses.
To calculate growth on a strictly comparable basis, however, we also need to check whether the same quarter last year contained similar items. Simply deducting $900 million from this year's revenue and comparing the remainder with all of last year's revenue does not produce something we can directly call the “real growth rate.”
Why raise the revenue forecast but lower the earnings forecast?
The most interesting part of the results was Lilly's revised outlook for the full year. It raised expected annual revenue from $85–87 billion to $91–92 billion, while trimming its non-GAAP earnings per share forecast from $35.50–36.50 to $35.00–36.00.[1]
“Earnings per share” is, in simple terms, the company's profit allocated to each share of stock. “Non-GAAP” means that the figure uses the adjustments the company discloses. We need to read the explanation to see exactly which items are excluded; it does not mean that every unusual expense has been removed.
Lilly explained that the benefit from stronger underlying operating performance was offset by acquired in-process research and development charges in the third quarter.[1]
In other words, the existing business performed better, but the company also incurred costs to obtain future research opportunities.
Drug companies can develop medicines from scratch themselves, or add projects being studied by other companies to their pipelines through acquisitions or partnerships. Either approach costs money, and either can fail.
Separating these expenses can help us assess how the existing business is operating. When deciding whether a company is a worthwhile long-term investment, however, that money still counts. It purchases future opportunities. Whether those opportunities become medicines, and whether those medicines generate revenue, remains unproven.
Today's bestselling drugs also help prepare for tomorrow
From a drug-development perspective, successfully bringing a product to market is an important finish line. From the perspective of running a pharmaceutical company over the long term, it is also a new starting point.
The company must supply more medicine, support patient use, conduct new studies, and find the next products that can sustain growth. Some of today's revenue will be invested in that work.
The difficulty is that the outcome is usually uncertain when the money is spent. A promising molecule may fail in clinical trials. A successful trial may still be insufficient to obtain the approval the company expected. Even an approved drug must contend with payment and competition.
Assessing a pharmaceutical company therefore requires two timelines: how much revenue today's medicines can generate, and what the money being invested today may produce in the future.
This is also why “revenue growth” and “profit growth” in the same financial report may move at different speeds. We need to understand where the difference comes from before deciding whether it reflects operating pressure, greater investment in the future, or both.
A good drug, a good company, and a good investment each raise a different question
For patients, the first questions are whether a medicine can improve health, whether its risks are acceptable, and whether they can obtain and afford treatment.
For the company, there are further questions: can the drug sustain its sales, and can revenue cover production, research, and operating costs?
For investors, there is an additional question about price: how much of that future success have they already paid for when buying the shares?
Even if a company's drugs sell very well, subsequent shareholder returns may disappoint if the stock price already reflects highly optimistic growth expectations. Conversely, research spending that reduces current profit may create long-term value if it eventually produces an important new medicine.
A single quarter's revenue growth cannot settle these judgments.
Lilly's report shows that the commercial story of weight-loss drugs has entered a more specific phase: how far sales volume can expand, how realized prices will change, and what research investment can deliver in return.
These questions affect more than one company's earnings. They also influence which medicines can be developed in the future and which patients can actually receive them.
Further reading
Principal sources
[1] Lilly, October 29, 2026: Third-quarter 2026 financial results and updated full-year guidance.
Information current through October 29, 2026. Financial figures come from the company's announcement. The simplified examples explain concepts and do not represent its actual accounting calculations. The discussion of sustainable growth and research investment is analysis.
Before the Conclusion: there are still questions worth pursuing.
Medicine · Science · Ideas and Reading
Follow Before the Conclusion to stay curious and think independently together.
Text and image use statement
The text of this article was written originally by Before the Conclusion. Its illustrations were planned by Before the Conclusion and produced with the assistance of AI tools. You are welcome to share the article's web link. Without separate permission, please do not republish or excerpt its text by copying, reposting, publishing screenshots, or similar means, or separately reproduce, modify, or commercially use its illustrations.