IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/msm/wpaper/2013-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pharmaceutical Portfolio Management: Global Disease Burden and Corporate Performance Metrics

Author

Listed:
  • Rutger P. Daems PhD

    (Planet Strategy Group, Brussels, Belgium)

  • Edith L. Maes DBA

    (Maastricht School of Management, PO Box 1203, 6201 BE Maastricht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

BACKGROUND Consistent with good corporate citizenship and the role of multinational pharmaceutical corporations in producing social goods, there is a need to clarify the concept of global burden of disease (GBD) and create performance metrics that measure a firm’s contribution to ‘saving lives’ through its current portfolio as well as identify future opportunities for enhanced product/service offering. OBJECTIVE The purpose is to develop besides a conceptual framework an analytic decision-making tool to assess and enhance a firm’s contribution to reducing the burden of disease, and to propose pathways on how this can be accomplished by optimizing the social and business returns on investment thereby maximizing the outcome for all stakeholders (i.e. patient, government, payer and firm). METHODOLOGY Product development and financial parameters are connected in an analytic decision model in combination with disease burden metrics. Through event study methodology, we subsequently explore solutions to a number of market, technology, and system issues leading to a disparity between socially and privately appropriable benefits. This is examined through a series of case studies. The GBD-based theoretical framework provides a general overview and at the same time an assessment of the social return on investment (SRI) as well as the contribution made by any specific compound or project that together constitute the company’s portfolio – now and in the future. The social outcome (SRI) is commonly expressed as Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) averted and the preferred indicator of how successful the burden of disease has been reduced. Simultaneously, the business return on investment (BRI) is computed, capturing the R&D costs and risks in a modular fashion, allowing executives to calculate the profitability index for each product or project. CONCLUSION This paper contributes to the burgeoning literature on medical innovation and the ambition to broaden access to medicines. The relationship between a firm’s product outcomes and its corporate social responsibility is examined in the context of a globalizing world still dominated by different national economies and healthcare needs. To better accommodate these needs a holistic framework is required that captures the demands of those living in high, middle and low-income countries. We believe the suggested framework is able to accomplish this goal and essentially provides a more holistic product portfolio management tool that links the social and business returns of pharmaceutical innovation into a coherent analytic and decision framework, while also providing a dynamic view on how the results obtained along each of the core axes can be improved or optimized.

Suggested Citation

  • Rutger P. Daems PhD & Edith L. Maes DBA, 2013. "Pharmaceutical Portfolio Management: Global Disease Burden and Corporate Performance Metrics," Working Papers 2013/07, Maastricht School of Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:msm:wpaper:2013/07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://web2.msm.nl/RePEc/msm/wpaper/MSM-WP2013-07.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daems, Rutger & Maes, Edith & Ramani, Shyama V., 2011. "Global Framework for Differential Pricing of Pharmaceuticals," MERIT Working Papers 2011-054, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Henry G. Grabowski, 1968. "The Determinants of Industrial Research and Development: A Study of the Chemical, Drug, and Petroleum Industries," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 76, pages 292-292.
    3. Murray, Christopher J. L. & Acharya, Arnab K., 1997. "Understanding DALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 703-730, December.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    5. Colin D Mathers & Dejan Loncar, 2006. "Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Jon Sussex & Adrian Towse & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "Operationalizing Value-Based Pricing of Medicines," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 1-10, January.
    7. Henry Grabowski & John Vernon, 2000. "The determinants of pharmaceutical research and development expenditures," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 201-215.
    8. Yin, Wesley, 2008. "Market incentives and pharmaceutical innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1060-1077, July.
    9. 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. Bastian Rake, 2017. "Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 691-727, September.
    2. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. John A. Vernon, 2005. "Examining the link between price regulation and pharmaceutical R&D investment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2013. "Neglected infectious diseases: Are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting drug development research?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 185-208, April.
    5. Königbauer, Ingrid, 2006. "Dealing with Rising Health Care Costs: The Case of Pharmaceuticals," Munich Dissertations in Economics 5640, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    6. Margaret K. Kyle, 2019. "The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 20, pages 95-123, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Pierre Dubois & Olivier de Mouzon & Fiona Scott-Morton & Paul Seabright, 2015. "Market size and pharmaceutical innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 844-871, October.
    8. Vernon, John A. & Golec, Joseph H. & Lutter, Randall & Nardinelli, Clark, 2009. "An exploratory study of FDA new drug review times, prescription drug user fee acts, and R&D spending," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 1260-1274, November.
    9. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2009. "Nuove politiche per l'innovazione nel settore delle scienze della vita," Working Papers CERM 03-2009, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    10. Stephan Eger & Jörg Mahlich, 2014. "Pharmaceutical regulation in Europe and its impact on corporate R&D," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Barrenho, E & Smith, PC & Miraldo, M, 2013. "The determinants of attrition in drug development: a duration analysis," Working Papers 12204, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
    12. Felipa de Mello-Sampayo & Sofia de Sousa-Vale & Francisco Camoes, 2015. "Substitutability Between Drugs, Innovation, and Fiscal Policy in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 16(2), pages 273-289, November.
    13. Darius Lakdawalla & Neeraj Sood, 2007. "The Welfare Effects of Public Drug Insurance," NBER Working Papers 13501, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Gamba, Simona & Magazzini, Laura & Pertile, Paolo, 2021. "R&D and market size: Who benefits from orphan drug legislation?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    18. Mark Pauly & Kyle Myers, 2016. "A Ricardian-Demand Explanation for Changing Pharmaceutical R&D Productivity," NBER Working Papers 22720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Iizuka, Toshiaki & Uchida, Gyo, 2017. "Promoting innovation in small markets: Evidence from the market for rare and intractable diseases," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 56-65.
    20. Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2004. "Market Structure and Drug Innovation," MPRA Paper 16212, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pharmaceutical R&D; neglected diseases; push mechanism; pull mechanism; innovation; investment risk incentive;
    All these keywords.

    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:msm:wpaper:2013/07. 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: Maud de By (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/msmmmnl.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.