IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i9d10.1007_s40273-020-00926-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financing Drug Innovation in the US: Current Framework and Emerging Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • David Cutler

    (Harvard University)

  • Noam Kirson

    (Analysis Group, Inc.)

  • Genia Long

    (Analysis Group, Inc.)

Abstract

The current US drug innovation financing framework rests on the notion that a defined period of marketing exclusivity combined with the expectation of reimbursement for clinically valuable, cost-effective therapies, followed by vigorous price competition from generic drugs and biosimilars ensures a sufficient return on investment (ROI) to incent private sector risk-based investment and research and development activities while providing access for new treatments to patients. While periodically, alternatives such as government prizes, direct purchases or development, and limits on certain incentives have been proposed, the basic approach has remained intact since the 1980s, with incremental provisions addressing specific gaps and priorities, and adding provisions for biosimilar entry. This paper reviews the main elements of the current US system to financing drug innovation and its approach to balancing multiple objectives. In addition, the system for financing drug innovation must be effective over a wide range of potential scientific approaches and economic conditions. It should be predictable for investors and payers making long-term development and coverage decisions, while also encompassing unanticipated new treatment modalities and scientific progress. An important emerging challenge is posed by clinically transformative, high-investment, single-administration therapies, such as gene therapy. Continued experimentation and the input of a range of stakeholders are needed to ensure next-generation therapeutic advances continue to be developed and made available to patients.

Suggested Citation

  • David Cutler & Noam Kirson & Genia Long, 2020. "Financing Drug Innovation in the US: Current Framework and Emerging Challenges," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(9), pages 905-911, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00926-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00926-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00926-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-020-00926-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    2. Michael Kremer & Heidi Williams, 2010. "Incentivizing Innovation: Adding to the Tool Kit," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 10, pages 1-17, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Wright, Brian Davern, 1983. "The Economics of Invention Incentives: Patents, Prizes, and Research Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 691-707, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Rita Faria’s journal round-up for 14th September 2020
      by Rita Faria in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-09-14 11:00:07

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brueggemann, Julia & Meub, Lukas, 2015. "Experimental evidence on the effects of innovation contests," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 251, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    2. Onur Bayar & Thomas J. Chemmanur & Mark H. Liu, "undated". "How to Motivate Fundamental Innovation: Subsidies versus Prizes and the Role of Venture Capital," Working Papers 0175fin, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio, revised 06 Jan 2016.
    3. Linda Cohen & Amihai Glazer, 2014. "Forward Markets to Spur Innovation," Working Papers 131405, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    4. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott & Campbell, Georgina & MacCormack, Alan, 2012. "Grand Innovation Prizes: A theoretical, normative, and empirical evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1779-1792.
    5. Petra Moser & Tom Nicholas, 2013. "Prizes, Publicity and Patents: Non-Monetary Awards as a Mechanism to Encourage Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 763-788, September.
    6. Isabel Busom & Beatriz Corchuelo & Ester Martínez-Ros, 2014. "Tax incentives… or subsidies for business R&D?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 571-596, October.
    7. Francesco Squintani & Hugo A. Hopenhayn, 2016. "On the Direction of Innovation," 2016 Meeting Papers 1357, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    8. Burton, M. Diane & Nicholas, Tom, 2017. "Prizes, patents and the search for longitude," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 21-36.
    9. Liu, Guixian & Sun, Wei & Kong, Zhaoyang & Dong, Xiucheng & Jiang, Qingzhe, 2023. "Did the pollution charge system promote or inhibit innovation? Evidence from Chinese micro-enterprises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    10. Pierre Durand, 2018. "Impact du financement par fonds de pension sur la performance des entreprises du CAC 40," EconomiX Working Papers 2018-4, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    11. Hickfang, Michael & Holder, Ulrike, 2018. "The impact of stock options on risk-taking: Founder-CEOs and innovation," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 12/2018, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    12. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Barge-Gil, Andrés & Modrego, Aurelia, 2017. "Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 13-28.
    13. Jan Fagerberg & Bengt-Åke Lundvall & Martin Srholec, 2018. "Global Value Chains, National Innovation Systems and Economic Development," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 30(3), pages 533-556, July.
    14. Kurz, Michael & Kleimeier, Stefanie, 2019. "Credit Supply: Are there negative spillovers from banks’ proprietary trading? (RM/19/005-revised-)," Research Memorandum 026, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    15. Atal, Vidya & Bar, Talia & Gordon, Sidartha, 2016. "Project selection: Commitment and competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 30-48.
    16. Cowling, Marc & Ughetto, Elisa & Lee, Neil, 2018. "The innovation debt penalty: Cost of debt, loan default, and the effects of a public loan guarantee on high-tech firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 166-176.
    17. Jan Fagerberg & Martin Srholec, 2017. "Global Dynamics, Capabilities and the Crisis," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 83-106, Springer.
    18. Wang, Shanchao & Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2023. "R&D Lags in Economic Models," Staff Papers 330085, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    19. Andrea Lucchesi & Matthew A. Cole & Robert J. R. Elliot & Naercio A. Menezes-Filho, 2016. "Determinants Of Environmental Innovation In Brazilian Manufacturing Industries," Anais do XLII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 42nd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 143, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    20. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Elias Einiö & Ralf Martin & Kieu-Trang Nguyen & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Do tax Incentives for Research Increase Firm Innovation? An RD Design for R&D," NBER Working Papers 22405, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00926-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.