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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Branstetter, Lee & Chatterjee, Chirantan & Higgins, Matthew J., 2022. "Generic competition and the incentives for early-stage pharmaceutical innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Yin, Nina, 2023. "Pharmaceuticals, incremental innovation and market exclusivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Rathi, Sawan & Majumdar, Adrija & Chatterjee, Chirantan, 2024. "Did the COVID-19 pandemic propel usage of AI in pharmaceutical innovation? New evidence from patenting data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    11. Heyoung Yang & Hyuck Jai Lee, 2018. "Long-Term Collaboration Network Based on ClinicalTrials.gov Database in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Beth Woods & James Lomas & Mark Sculpher & Helen Weatherly & Karl Claxton, 2024. "Achieving dynamic efficiency in pharmaceutical innovation: Identifying the optimal share of value and payments required," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 804-819, April.
    13. Stacy Sneeringer & Matt Clancy, 2020. "Incentivizing New Veterinary Pharmaceutical Products to Combat Antibiotic Resistance," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 653-673, December.
    14. Gemma Turon & Jason Hlozek & John G. Woodland & Ankur Kumar & Kelly Chibale & Miquel Duran-Frigola, 2023. "First fully-automated AI/ML virtual screening cascade implemented at a drug discovery centre in Africa," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Adrian Towse;Jimena Ferraro;Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, 2017. "Incentives for New Drugs to Tackle Anti-Microbial Resistance," Briefing 001842, Office of Health Economics.
    16. Steffen Nauhaus & Johannes Luger & Sebastian Raisch, 2021. "Strategic Decision Making in the Digital Age: Expert Sentiment and Corporate Capital Allocation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1933-1961, November.
    17. Aysun, Uluc, 2024. "Technology diffusion and international business cycles," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    18. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    19. Alba C. Rojas-Cordova & Niyousha Hosseinichimeh, 2018. "Trial Termination and Drug Misclassification in Sequential Adaptive Clinical Trials," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 354-377, September.
    20. Crego, Julio & Kárpáti, Daniel & Kværner, Jens & Renneboog, Luc, 2022. "The Economic Value of Eliminating Diseases," Other publications TiSEM 8b51764f-3ccd-4bb8-9da1-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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.