IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/epo/papers/2016-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Publicly Funded Clinical Trials: A Route to Sustained Innovation with Affordable Drugs

Author

Listed:
  • Dean Baker

Abstract

The current system of financing pharmaceutical research through patent monopolies or other forms of market exclusivity is fundamentally flawed. It creates an altogether unnecessary problem by making drugs that are cheap to produce extremely expensive to the patients who need them. The fact that most of the cost is borne by third party payers undermines the traditional argument for market prices as conveying information about households’ desires. This system of pricing also leads to the sort of waste and corruption that would be predicted from a system in which government granted monopolies lead to items being sold at prices that are typically several thousand percent above their cost of production. This proposal outlines a plan for a pilot project of public financed clinical trials. Under this proposal, government(s) would set aside a limited amount of funding to finance clinical trials and bring drugs through national approval processes. This funding would be awarded under long-term contracts (8–10) years on a competitive basis. The winners of the contracts would test promising compounds of their choosing in the areas where they have designated an interest. As a condition of getting the funding, all the results of the tests will be fully available to the public. In addition, whatever drugs are approved would have no exclusivity conditions, so they could be sold as generics. In addition to making potentially important new drugs available to the public, this pilot will set a model for transparency in research. The practice of disclosing all test results in a timely manner should pressure other pharmaceutical companies to adopt the same practice. In addition, since the contracts and the number of trials will all be public information, this project will also provide substantial insights into the cost of clinical trials and drug development.

Suggested Citation

  • Dean Baker, 2016. "Publicly Funded Clinical Trials: A Route to Sustained Innovation with Affordable Drugs," CEPR Reports and Issue Briefs 2016-02, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
  • Handle: RePEc:epo:papers:2016-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/publicly-funded-trials-2016-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    2. Holger Patzelt & Dean A. Shepherd, 2009. "Strategic Entrepreneurship at Universities: Academic Entrepreneurs’ Assessment of Policy Programs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 319-340, January.
    3. Patzelt, Holger & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, Dodo & Fischer, Heiko T., 2009. "Upper echelons and portfolio strategies of venture capital firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 558-572, November.
    4. Darius Lakdawalla & Neeraj Sood, 2007. "The Welfare Effects of Public Drug Insurance," NBER Working Papers 13501, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Dosis, Anastasios & Muthoo, Abhinay, 2019. "Experimentation in Dynamic R&D Competition," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 52, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    6. Lorenz, Steffi, 2015. "Diversität und Verbundenheit der unternehmerischen Wissensbasis: Ein neuartiger Messansatz mit Indikatoren aus Innovationsprojekten," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 15-01, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    7. Scherer, F.M., 2010. "Pharmaceutical Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 539-574, Elsevier.
    8. Garavaglia Christian & Malerba Franco & Orsenigo Luigi & Pezzoni Michele, 2014. "Innovation and Market Structure in Pharmaceuticals: An Econometric Analysis on Simulated Data," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(2-3), pages 274-298, April.
    9. Tomas J. Philipson & Eric Sun, 2008. "Is the Food And Drug Administration Safe And Effective?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 85-102, Winter.
    10. Grabowski, Henry & Vernon, John & DiMasi, Joseph, 2002. "Returns on R&D for 1990s New Drug Introductions," Working Papers 02-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    11. Ming Liu & Sumner LaCroix, 2011. "The Impact of Stronger Property Rights in Pharmaceuticals on Innovation in Developed and Developing Countries," Working Papers 201116, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    12. Bhardwaj, Ramesh, 2015. "Restraining High and Rising Cancer Drug Prices: Need for Accelerating R&D Productivity and Aligning Prices with Value," MPRA Paper 63405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Edouard Debonneuil & Anne Eyraud-Loisel & Frédéric Planchet, 2018. "Can Pension Funds Partially Manage Longevity Risk by Investing in a Longevity Megafund?," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-27, July.
    14. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    15. Waters, James, 2014. "Introduction of innovations during the 2007-8 financial crisis: US companies compared with universities," MPRA Paper 59016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Wolfgang Hein & Lars Kohlmorgen, 2005. "Global Health Governance: Conflicts on Global Social Rights," HEW 0509001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Versaevel, Bruno, 2019. "One lab, two firms, many possibilities: On R&D outsourcing in the biopharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 260-283.
    18. Gnanaraj Chellaraj & Keith E. Maskus & Aaditya Mattoo, 2008. "The Contribution of International Graduate Students to US Innovation," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 444-462, August.
    19. Jommi, Claudio & Paruzzolo, Silvia, 2007. "Public administration and R&D localisation by pharmaceutical and biotech companies: A theoretical framework and the Italian case-study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 117-130, April.
    20. Nebibe Varol & Joan Costa-i-Font & Alistair McGuire, 2011. "Explaining Early Adoption on New Medicines: Regulation, Innovation and Scale," CESifo Working Paper Series 3459, CESifo.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I - Health, Education, and Welfare
    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:epo:papers:2016-02. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceprdus.html .

    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.