2021 Vault Rankings
At a Glance
“Investment in learning.”
“Strong, supportive, and collegial office culture.”
“Fascinating work, opportunities for growth.”
“The volatility of hours.”
“Deadlines can shift unexpectedly.”
“Leading economics consulting firm.”
“Well-respected litigation consulting.”
“Very intelligent people.”
About Analysis Group, Inc.
Boston-based Analysis Group provides expertise in economics, finance, health care analytics, and strategy to top law firms, Fortune 500 companies, global health care corporations, and government agencies. Much of the firm’s work is grounded in economic analysis – whether that involves a quantitative assessment related to litigation, quantifying the impact of a disease on the U.S. economy, or developing a model for a client’s corporate strategic planning exercise.
Analysis Group has provided litigation support for lawyers at more than 500 global law firms, and has consulted to general counsels and senior executives at a number of Fortune 100 companies. The firm also has a robust health care practice.
For law firms, Analysis Group’s consultants help with pretrial discovery, development of economic and financial models, preparation of testimony, critique of opposing experts’ analyses, and provision of expert testimony. The economic crisis of 2008–9 resulted in an uptick in engagements requiring the analysis of complex securities – such as derivatives and credit default swaps, or the securitized assets at the center of the subprime housing fallout – both for litigation and for a wide range of participants in financial markets. The firm also works on interesting and unusual cases, such as the “Deflategate” controversy.
Corporate and government clients call on the firm for help with a variety of business issues, including company and asset valuations, cost-effectiveness analyses, market and competition analyses, intellectual property matters, and tax issues. The firm’s large and growing health care practice integrates outcomes research, epidemiology, drug safety studies, and pricing and product strategy, as well as litigation support.
Close to – but not inside – the ivory tower
Former Arthur D. Little consultants Bruce Stangle and Michael Koehn founded Analysis Group in 1981 in Belmont, MA. The two Ph.D. economists sought to fuse academic practice with business litigation consulting by applying economic research to distill complex situations into narratives with powerful effect when introduced at trials. Their goal was to create a uniquely collaborative environment. For each client engagement, Analysis Group’s professionals are grouped into teams, which are tailored to the needs of the project and the client. Often, these teams are supplemented by academic or industry experts from the firm’s external network.
At the beginning, the firm primarily consulted on mergers and acquisitions. Today, its consultants – working from 14 offices across the globe – have experience in all areas of economics as it applies to the legal and business world. This includes securities, health care, energy, intellectual property, antitrust, and commercial litigation and damages.
The firm adheres to four operating tenets, which give shape to its business philosophy. The first is access: Analysis Group maintains close ties to specialists – top minds in academia, leaders in their respective industries, and government insiders – to ensure that clients have access to the best people and ideas. Consultants work closely with a network of such experts to offer clients quantitative analysis and hands-on experience to help overcome business and legal hurdles. The second is collaboration: The firm encourages strong relationships within consulting teams and between teams and clients – which ultimately improves communication, effectiveness, and satisfaction. The third is responsiveness: The firm is able to rapidly identify specialized experts for a case, and employs a flexible structure that allows teams to quickly scale up or down as needed. The final tenet is pragmatism: Analysis Group believes all strategies should focus on relevant, applicable solutions in the business or legal world.
In the News
Analysis Group Publishes Research on Employment and GDP Effects of Investment in New Spectrum for 5G Wireless Networks
Analysis Group prepared a white paper to inform the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) consideration of whether to make additional spectrum available for next-generation 5G wireless networks. 5G will enable improvements in data speed, service quality, and network capacity because it is designed to exploit not only low-band spectrum, which historically has been used for mobile voice and data services, but also mid- and high-band spectrum. Consequently, to achieve the anticipated increases delivered by 5G, service providers will need to invest in building out new infrastructure for each band.
An Analysis Group team, including Principal David Sosa, Vice President Greg Rafert, and Analyst Ethan Brodeur, researched the economic impacts from making low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum available for 5G services. They grouped 5G infrastructure-related capital spending into four industry categories (wireless communications equipment, construction, wireline communications equipment, and wire and cable), and modeled the impact on US GDP and jobs creation.
Based on estimates of nearly $220 billion in new capital expenditures, the team concluded that deploying infrastructure for all three bands of spectrum would add $391 billion in GDP to the US economy and create 1.9 million job-years. Approximately 70 percent of the GDP and jobs impact is attributable to deployment of mid-band spectrum. Another 19 percent is traceable to deployment of high-band spectrum intended for dense metropolitan areas, with the remaining 11 percent coming from deployment of low-band spectrum required for nationwide rural coverage.
Analysis Group Symposium Examines Critical Economic Issues in Life Sciences Litigation
Analysis Group convened a symposium to bring together academic experts, industry counsel, and consultants from the firm for discussions on litigation topics often encountered by pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies today. A key goal was to facilitate the exchange of views on critical law and economics questions in a forum that included a variety of stakeholders. David Schmittlein, Dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, opened the Symposium by noting the many points of connection between Analysis Group and the Sloan School.
One major theme of the gathering was the potential tradeoffs between access to treatments already on the market (affordability), and access to future treatments that have yet to be developed (innovation). That was the issue underlying much of the keynote event that opened the Symposium – a fireside chat between two former commissioners of the Food and Drug Administration: Mark McClellan (now director of the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University) and Scott Gottlieb (now resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute). Moderated by Managing Principal Crystal Pike, co-organizer of the Symposium, the discussion between the two former regulators also addressed topics such as the role played by real-world evidence at the approval and post-approval stages; First Amendment issues in the context of off-label promotion investigations; and the distinct challenges faced by private and public payers in trying to provide access to transformative therapies and improve health outcomes.
Many of the themes discussed during the fireside chat also arose during a plenary session on drug pricing introduced by Analysis Group CEO and Chairman Martha Samuelson, and moderated by Managing Principal Noam Kirson. The participants included: Dr. Gottlieb, Rena Conti of Boston University, Craig Garthwaite of Northwestern University, Jennifer Bryant of PhRMA, and David Cutler of Harvard University. The session began with the question of why drug pricing gets so much attention even though drug costs represent only 10–15 percent of health care spending in the United States. This led to discussions concerning innovative approaches to pricing, efforts to regulate and reduce drug prices, and the impact of competition on prices.
City of Milwaukee Settles Stop-and-Frisk Lawsuit in Which Analysis Group Collaborated with the ACLU
In Milwaukee, as in a number of other American cities, black and Latino residents have raised concerns that they are disproportionately stopped and frisked by police, without reasonable suspicion as required by law. These complaints led in 2017 to Collins, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al., a lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging the city’s stop-and-frisk program on the grounds that it violated residents’ rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Among the evidence the ACLU submitted to the federal court in the suit were expert reports by Analysis Group affiliate David Abrams and criminal justice consultant Margo Frasier. An Analysis Group team including Vice President Shannon Seitz and Associates Rebecca Scott and Nick Vigil worked with the ACLU and Covington & Burling LLP, and supported both Professor Abrams and Ms. Frasier. Professor Abrams’s report concluded that, even after controlling for factors other than race and ethnicity, black people in Milwaukee are significantly more likely to be subjected to traffic and pedestrian stops and searched after being subjected to a traffic stop, even though it is highly unlikely that these stops and searches will result in the discovery of drugs or weapons. Ms. Frasier’s study concluded that, in a majority of documented traffic and pedestrian stops, officers had failed to identify individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or vehicle equipment violations prior to conducting the stop. Her report also concluded that Milwaukee police officers routinely failed to document race and ethnicity information about people subjected to such stops.
The case was settled after a year and a half of litigation. As part of the settlement, reforms were instituted that are intended to overhaul how Milwaukee police conduct, document, supervise, and monitor stops and frisks in the future.
Analysis Group Client Republic of Cyprus Secures Favorable Ruling in International Arbitration
A panel of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) dismissed a €1.05 billion claim against the Republic of Cyprus lodged by a Greek investment company and other former shareholders in a Cypriot bank. The Cypriot government acquired majority ownership in the Cyprus Popular Bank in a €1.8 billion recapitalization in 2012, amid fears of default due in part to exposure to Greek bonds during that country’s debt crisis. The bank was placed in administration the following year, and deposits of over €100,000 were made subject to a levy as part of a rescue agreement between Cyprus and the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
The investment company Marfin Investment Group and other former shareholders brought an ICSID arbitration claim under a 1992 bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Greece and Cyprus. The claimants challenged Cyprus’s regulation of the bank, including the Central Bank of Cyprus’s decision to remove management and the terms of the 2012 recapitalization. Skadden Arps, counsel for the Republic of Cyprus, retained Analysis Group affiliates Jean-Pierre Landau and Andrew Metrick, who in turn were supported by an Analysis Group team led by Vice President Steven Saeger and including Manager Andrew Ungerer. Professors Landau and Metrick filed joint expert reports and provided testimony that addressed the reasonableness of the actions taken by the Cypriot authorities in the context of the European debt crisis.
An ICSID panel rejected the shareholders’ claims, holding that Cyprus had not breached any international obligations under the BIT. The panel also awarded the Cypriot government €5 million in legal costs.
White Paper on Vehicle Efficiency Standards Released by Analysis Group Energy Experts
First enacted in 1975, the U.S. government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have promoted cost-effective energy conservation by mandating that fleets of cars produced by vehicle manufacturers each year in the U.S. meet certain minimum fuel-economy requirements. Since 2017, however, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been reconsidering the CAFE standards for the model years 2022–2025, which were originally set in 2009.
An Analysis Group team led by Senior Advisor Susan Tierney and Principal Paul Hibbard developed a white paper addressing one of the factors likely to be part of the reassessment of CAFE standards – namely, estimates of how consumers change their driving patterns (i.e., driving more or fewer miles) when presented with cars and light trucks that get a greater (or lower) number of miles per gallon of fuel. This is known as the “rebound effect,” and it is a critical element in cost/benefit estimations of changes to vehicle efficiency standards.
In the white paper Vehicle Fuel-Economy and Air-Pollution Standards: A Literature Review of the Rebound Effect, Dr. Tierney, Mr. Hibbard, and their Analysis Group coauthors reviewed the extensive literature on the rebound effect and concluded that studies using data from broad parts of the U.S. and based on multiple years of data (e.g., time-series data) were most relevant to determining the rebound effect. Those analyses, the authors found, show that the rebound effect has been lessening over time as baseline fuel economy has improved. The studies also suggest that the rebound effect tends to decrease as income increases, because the cost of fuel becomes relatively less important to decisions about whether to drive or not; and that a consumer’s vehicle miles traveled is less sensitive to changes in fuel economy than to changes in fuel prices. As a result, the authors determined that a 10-percent rebound effect, which up to now has been used by the different agencies to establish CAFE standards, was supported by the relevant literature.
Analysis Group Works with Foundation Medicine to Obtain National Coverage Determination for Groundbreaking Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Assay for All Solid Tumors
On March 16, 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) took a major step forward in enabling precision medicine for the treatment of patients with cancer. Specifically, CMS issued a final National Coverage Determination (NCD) that allows patients to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for any recurrent, relapsed, refractory, metastatic, or advanced stages III or IV cancer. NGS tests can be used to sequence the DNA from tumor tissue, allowing care providers to test for a large number of genomic alterations that are implicated in cancer cell biology. Collectively, the results can help physicians make more informed and individualized decisions about a patient’s treatment regimen, which can lead to improved treatment response rates and survival. Following the NCD, all Medicare-eligible patients who are diagnosed with advanced solid tumor cancer in the U.S. each year may become eligible for tumor sequencing using NGS.
Among the tests approved for coverage was FoundationOne CDx™, the first comprehensive genomic profiling assay reviewed simultaneously by the CMS and FDA for solid tumors through a parallel process. Developed by Foundation Medicine, the 324-gene panel test can detect genomic alterations across all solid tumor types, including alterations associated with over 15 already-approved targeted cancer drugs, as well as genomic signatures including microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB).
An Analysis Group team, led by Managing Principal Anita Chawla and Manager Marcia Reinhart, supported Foundation Medicine’s NCD request with a comprehensive review and synthesis of medical and scientific information on advanced cancer and settings in which FoundationOne CDx is expected to be used, the analytic and clinical validity of the test, and the clinical utility of NGS-based testing.
111 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02199
Phone: (617) 425-8000
Employer Type: Private
CEO & Chairman: Martha S. Samuelson
2019 Employees (All Locations): 1,000
Boston, MA (HQ)
Los Angeles, CA
Menlo Park, CA
New York, NY
San Francisco, CA
Antitrust & Competition
Data Science & Statistical Modeling
Energy & Environment
Epidemiology & Biostatistics
Government & Corporate Investigations
Labor & Employment
Media, Entertainment & Communications
Privacy & Data Security
Securities, Financial Products & Institutions
Strategy, Policy & Analytics
Surveys & Experimental Studies
Tax & Accounting
Transaction & Governance Litigation