IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0288447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NIH funding for patents that contribute to market exclusivity of drugs approved 2010–2019 and the public interest protections of Bayh-Dole

Author

Listed:
  • Fred D Ledley
  • Ekaterina Galkina Cleary

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding contributed >$187 billion for basic or applied research related to the 356 drugs approved 2010–2019. This analysis asks how much of this funding led to patents cited as providing market exclusivity, patents that would be subject to the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act that promote and protect the public interest. The method involves identifying published research in PubMed related to the approved drugs (applied research) or their targets (basic research). NIH-funded projects (grants) funding these publications and patents arising from these projects were both identified in RePORT. Patents cited as providing market exclusivity were identified in DrugPatentWatch (which incorporates FDA Orange Book). NIH funded basic or applied research related to all 313 FDA-approved drugs 2010–2019 with at least one patent in DrugPatentWatch. This research comprised 350 thousand publications (9% applied research; 91% basic research) supported by 341 thousand fiscal years (project years) of NIH funding and $164 billion in NIH project year costs (17% applied research; 83% basic research). These NIH projects also produced 22,360 patents, 119 of which were cited in DrugPatentWatch as protecting 34/313 drugs. These patents were associated with 769 project years of NIH funding (0.23% total) and project year costs of $0.95 billion (0.59% total). Overall, only 1.5% of total NIH funding for applied research and 0.38% of total NIH funding for basic research was associated with patents in DrugPatentWatch. This analysis shows that very little of the NIH funding for research that contributes to new drug approvals leads to patents that provide market exclusivity and are subject to the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act that promote the public interest in practical applications of the research, reasonable use and pricing, and a return on this public sector investment. This suggests that the Bayh-Dole Act is limited in its ability to protect the public interest in the pharmaceutical innovations driven by NIH-funded research.

Suggested Citation

  • Fred D Ledley & Ekaterina Galkina Cleary, 2023. "NIH funding for patents that contribute to market exclusivity of drugs approved 2010–2019 and the public interest protections of Bayh-Dole," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288447
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288447
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288447&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0288447?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Grabowski, Henry G. & Hansen, Ronald W., 2016. "Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 20-33.
    2. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    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. Margaret K. Kyle, 2020. "The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 95-123.
    2. Heyen, Nils B. & Zenker, Andrea & Aichinger, Heike & Bratan, Tanja & Kaufmann, Tanja & Schnabl, Esther, 2024. "Innovation without growth? Exploring the (in)dependency of innovation on economic growth," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 83, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    3. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    4. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    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. Yusuke Oh & Koji Takahashi, 2020. "R&D and Innovation: Evidence from Patent Data," Bank of Japan Working Paper Series 20-E-7, Bank of Japan.
    7. 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).
    8. Andrea, Bastianin & Paolo, Castelnuovo & Massimo, Florio & Anna, Giunta, 2019. "Technological Learning and Innovation Gestation Lags at the Frontier of Science: from CERN Procurement to Patents," Working Papers 405, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2019.
    9. Branstetter, Lee & Chatterjee, Chirantan & Higgins, Matthew J., 2022. "Generic competition and the incentives for early-stage pharmaceutical innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    10. Unsal, Omer & Houston, Reza, 2024. "R&D grants and medical innovation," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    11. Abe C. Dunn & Lasanthi Fernando & Eli Liebman, 2024. "How Much Are Medical Innovations Worth? A Detailed Analysis Using Cost-Effectiveness Studies," BEA Papers 0132, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    12. Alfred B. Ordman, 2022. "When Will the FDA Do What Is in People’s Best Interests?," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(4), pages 721-751, September.
    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. Ciro D. Esposito & Balazs Szatmari & Jonathan M. C. Sitruk & Nachoem M. Wijnberg, 2024. "Getting off to a good start: emerging academic fields and early-stage equity financing," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 1591-1613, April.
    15. Hans Gersbach & Ulrich Schetter & Maik T. Schneider, 2021. "Macroeconomic Rationales For Public Investments In Science," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(2), pages 575-599, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Li, Ping & Wang, Yujing & Li, Meng & Gao, Haoyu, 2024. "The power of speed: High-speed railways and scientific research competitiveness in China," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    18. Fabian Gaessler & Stefan Wagner, 2022. "Patents, Data Exclusivity, and the Development of New Drugs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(3), pages 571-586, May.
    19. Yixiang Ruan & Chenyin Lu & Ning Xu & Yuchen He & Yixin Chen & Jian Zhang & Jun Xuan & Jianzhang Pan & Qun Fang & Hanyu Gao & Xiaodong Shen & Ning Ye & Qiang Zhang & Yiming Mo, 2024. "An automatic end-to-end chemical synthesis development platform powered by large language models," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Gregor Dorfleitner & Felix Rößle, 2018. "The financial performance of the health care industry: a global, regional and industry specific empirical investigation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 585-594, May.

    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:plo:pone00:0288447. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.