Article

What Are The Respective Roles Of The Public And Private Sectors In Pharmaceutical Innovation?

Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.97). 02/2011; 30(2):332-9. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0917
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in drug development? This question is at the heart of some policy proposals, such as those that would give the government a share of profits from drugs at least partly developed with federal research dollars. This paper provides empirical data on these issues, using information included in the patents on drugs approved between 1988 and 2005. Overall, we find that direct government funding is more important in the development of "priority-review" drugs-sometimes described as the most innovative new drugs-than it is for "standard-review" drugs. Government funding has played an indirect role-for example, by funding basic underlying research that is built on in the drug discovery process-in almost half of the drugs approved and in almost two-thirds of priority-review drugs. Our analyses should help inform thinking about the returns on public research funding-a topic of long-standing interest to economists, policy makers, and health advocates.

  • Source
    • "In other instances, the terms pioneering and me too are invoked without a clear sense of the relationship between these terms and the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) NDA classifications. Some researchers focus on the development of new molecular entities (NMEs) (or new chemical entities) (DiMasi, Hansen, and Grabowski 2003; Sampat and Lichtenberg 2011), while others focus on drugs granted FDA " priority review " status (Light and Lexchin 2012). However, FDA classifications allow for more fine-grained distinctions than have previously been utilized by researchers. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The pharmaceutical industry has been criticized for developing and aggressively marketing drugs that do not provide significant health benefits relative to existing drugs but retain the benefits of patent protection. Critics argue that drug marketing increases health care expenditures and provides a disincentive for pioneering drug innovation. However, evidence that marketing expenditures have any relationship to new drug approvals has been anecdotal. We hypothesized that, at publicly traded pharmaceutical firms, increased marketing expenditures will result in a reduced volume of pioneering new drugs in comparison to less innovative new drugs. We also hypothesized that additional research and development spending will result in an increased volume of pioneering new drugs in comparison to less innovative drugs. Results confirm our hypotheses. Specific policy recommendations for altering firms' incentives for the development of pioneering drugs are provided.
    Preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law
  • Source
    • "Clinical trials' cohorts generate comprehensive patient datasets whose value for personalised medicine research is immeasurable [12] [13]. Despite this, most of pharmaceutical data are private [14]. It is important to distinguish between private companies' data, which is the basis for internal research and development for new drugs and treatments, from public research datasets, fundamental to advance general scientific research. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The proper exploration of patient-level data will pave the way towards personalised medicine. To better assess the state of the art in this field we identify the challenges and uncover the opportunities for the exploration of patient-level data through the review of well-known initiatives and projects focusing on the exploration of patient-level data. These cover a broad array of topics, from genomics to patient registries up to rare diseases research, among others. For each, we identified basic goals, involved partners, defined strategies and key technological and scientific outcomes, establishing the foundation for our analysis framework with four pillars: control, sustainability, technology, and science. Substantial research outcomes have been produced towards the exploration of patient-level data. The potential behind these data will be essential to realise the personalised medicine premise in upcoming years. Hence, relevant stakeholders continually push forward new developments in this domain, bringing novel opportunities that are ripe for exploration. Despite last decade's translational research advances, personalised medicine is still far from being a reality. Patients' data underlying potential goes beyond daily clinical practice. There are miscellaneous challenges and opportunities open for the exploration of these data by academia and business stakeholders.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2015
  • Source
    • "The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. (Burke 1790/ 1987, p. 53.) Proponents of the Intellectual Property Forgiveness theory claim that pharmaceutical companies could effectively release intellectual property rights in developing and 10 Recently, Sampat and Lichtenberg (2011) reported an even greater role for the relative importance of 'indirect' public funding in pharmaceutical drug development, using patent citation data as a surrogate indicator for public sector influence. In their analysis of 379 drug approvals (1998–2005), approximately 25 % cite at least one at least one publicly funded patent (p. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many people believe that the research-based pharmaceutical industry has a ‘special’ moral obligation to provide lifesaving medications to the needy, either free-of charge or at a reduced rate relative to the cost of manufacture. In this essay, I argue that we can explain the ubiquitous notion of a special moral obligation as an expression of emotionally charged intuitions involving sacred or protected values and an aversive response to betrayal in an asymmetric trust relationship. I then review the most common arguments used to justify the claim that the pharmaceutical industry has a special moral obligation and show why these justifications fail. Taken together, these conclusions call into question the conventional ideologies that have traditionally animated the debate on whether the pharmaceutical industry has special duties of beneficence and distributive justice with respect to the impoverished in dire need of their products.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2013 · Journal of Business Ethics
Show more