IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/fhecpo/v19y2016i1p71-86n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Returns to Society from Investment in Cancer Research and Development

Author

Listed:
  • Chandra Amitabh

    (Precision Health Economics, 11100 Santa Monica Blvd Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA Harvard University – Kennedy School of Government, Boston, MA, USA)

  • MacEwan Joanna P.

    (Precision Health Economics, Oakland, CA, USA)

  • Campinha-Bacote Avrita

    (Precision Health Economics, Oakland, CA, USA)

  • Khan Zeba M.

    (Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ, USA)

Abstract

Background: Since the start of the War on Cancer there have been enormous investments in improving oncology treatment. The return to society generated by this investment is unknown. We estimate the returns generated over the previous four decades and extrapolate future returns from current investment in cancer R&D.Methods: Using data on cancer incidence, mortality, and treatment-specific R&D expenditures from 1973 to 2010, we used regression models and two-sided significance tests to relate investment in cancer treatment R&D to cancer mortality, by tumor type. For investment, we used a measure of the knowledge stock generated by cancer treatment R&D expenditures over the previous 25 years to capture the cumulative benefits of past innovations and advances in treatment.Results: Investment of an additional $1 million in cervical, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer between 1973 and 1990 was associated with a cumulative return of more than $5 million from cancer R&D by 2010. Through 2010, investment in cancer R&D was associated with average benefits in excess of costs in all but two cancers, ovarian and pancreatic. Regarding future returns, we estimated that each additional $1 million invested in cancer treatment research and development in 2010 will produce over $28 million in value over the following 50 years.Conclusions: The return to society from spending on cancer treatment R&D is large, but varies across tumor types.

Suggested Citation

  • Chandra Amitabh & MacEwan Joanna P. & Campinha-Bacote Avrita & Khan Zeba M., 2016. "Returns to Society from Investment in Cancer Research and Development," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 71-86, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:fhecpo:v:19:y:2016:i:1:p:71-86:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/fhep-2014-0022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2014-0022
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/fhep-2014-0022?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. Joseph E. Aldy & W. Kip Viscusi, 2008. "Adjusting the Value of a Statistical Life for Age and Cohort Effects," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 573-581, August.
    2. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Heijs, Joost, 2003. "Freerider behaviour and the public finance of R&D activities in enterprises: the case of the Spanish low interest credits for R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 445-461, March.
    2. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    3. Teimuraz Gogokhia & George Berulava, 2021. "Business environment reforms, innovation and firm productivity in transition economies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(2), pages 221-245, June.
    4. Emanuela Marrocu & Raffaele Paci & Stefano Usai, 2013. "Productivity Growth In The Old And New Europe: The Role Of Agglomeration Externalities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 418-442, August.
    5. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan, 2013. "Do firms face a trade-off between the quantity and the quality of their inventions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1072-1079.
    6. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    7. Ioannis Giotopoulos & Alexander S. Kritikos & Aggelos Tsakanikas, 2023. "A lasting crisis affects R&D decisions of smaller firms: the Greek experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1161-1175, August.
    8. Mustafa Gomleksiz, 2023. "International Knowledge Spillovers and Economic Growth: New Evidence from High-Tech Imports and R&D Cooperation," Istanbul Journal of Economics-Istanbul Iktisat Dergisi, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 73(73-1), pages 281-305, June.
    9. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    10. Christoph Meister & Bart Verspagen & Guntram B. Wolff, 2006. "European Productivity Gaps: Is R&D the Solution?," Chapters, in: Susanne Mundschenk & Michael H. Stierle & Ulrike Stierle-von Schütz & Iulia Traistaru-Siedschlag (ed.), Competitiveness and Growth in Europe, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Xianpu Xu & Tieshan Zhao, 2024. "Towards Green Development: Exploring the Impact of Housing Price Bubbles on Regional Green Innovation Efficiency Based on Chinese Provincial Panel Data Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-23, November.
    12. Bertschek, Irene & Kesler, Reinhold, 2022. "Let the user speak: Is feedback on Facebook a source of firms’ innovation?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    13. Wu, Mingran & Zhao, Min & Wu, Zhaodan, 2019. "Evaluation of development level and economic contribution ratio of science and technology innovation in eastern China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    14. Federico Caviggioli & Alessandra Colombelli & Antonio De Marco & Giuseppe Scellato & Elisa Ughetto, 2023. "Co-evolution patterns of university patenting and technological specialization in European regions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 216-239, February.
    15. Pedro de Faria & Francisco Lima, 2012. "Interdependence and spillovers: is firm performance affected by others’ innovation activities?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(36), pages 4765-4775, December.
    16. Bedford, Anna & Ma, Le & Ma, Nelson & Vojvoda, Kristina, 2022. "Australian innovation: Patent database construction and first evidence," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    17. Emanuele Giovannetti & Claudio Piga, 2023. "The multifaceted nature of cooperation for innovation, ICT and innovative outcomes: evidence from UK Microdata," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(3), pages 639-666, September.
    18. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    19. Kim, Dong Ha & Lee, Bo Kyeong & Sohn, So Young, 2016. "Quantifying technology–industry spillover effects based on patent citation network analysis of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 140-157.
    20. Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2022. "Knowledge properties and the creative response in the global economy: European evidence for the years 1990–2016," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 459-475, April.

    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:bpj:fhecpo:v:19:y:2016:i:1:p:71-86:n:5. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.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.