What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in pharmaceutical innovation?

Health Affairs

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 332-339

  Sampat, Bhaven N ^a   Lichtenberg, Frank R ^b  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^b The Sanford C Bernstein Co Center for Leadership and Ethics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IMATINIB;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LEUKEMIA; MEDICAL INFORMATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT;

COMMERCE; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PRIVATE SECTOR; PUBLIC SECTOR; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; ROLE;

EID: 79955636638     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0917     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Moses H 3rd, Dorsey ER, Matheson DH, Thier SO. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA. 2005; 294(11):1333-42.
2. Dorsey ER, Vitticore P, De Roulet J, Thompson JP, Carrasco M, Johnston SC, et al. Financial anatomy of neuroscience research. Ann Neurol. 2006;60(6):652-9.
3. Angell M. The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. New York (NY): Random House; 2004.
4. Goozner M. The $800 million pill: the truth behind the cost of new drugs. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 2004.
5. Cohn J. Creative destruction: the best case against universal health care. New Republic. 2007 Nov 12.
6. Clinton H. Hillary Clinton: universal healthcare a moral imperative. GBMNews [serial on the Internet]. 2007 Sep 28 [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.gbmnews.com/articles/1535/1/Hillary-Clinton-Universal-Healthcare-A-Moral-Imperative/Page1.html.
7. Herder M. Asking for money back: chilling commercialization or recouping public trust in the context of stem cell research? Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. 2008;9:203-36.
8. Korn D, Heinig S. Recoupment efforts threaten federal research. Issues Sci Technol [serial on the Internet]. 2004 Summer [cited 2010 Dec 30]. Available from: http://www.issues.org/20.4/p_korn.html.
9. McCaughan M. NIH as partner: new director Collins will stress royalties, not price oversight. In Vivo Blog [blog on the Internet]. 2009 Aug 21 [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://invivoblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/nih-as-partner-new-director-collins.html.
10. National Institutes of Health. NIH response to the conference report request for a plan to insure taxpayers' interests are protected [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): NIH; 2001 Jul [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.nih.gov/news/070101wyden.htm.
11. Arno PS, Davis MH. Why don't we enforce existing price controls? The unrecognized and unenforced reasonable pricing requirements imposed upon patents deriving in whole or in part from federally funded research. Tulane Law Rev. 2001;75:631-93.
12. Love J, Flynn S. Letter to the Honorable Tommy Thompson, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services [Internet]. Washington (DC): Essential Inventions; 2004 Jan 29 [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.essentialinventions.org/legal/xalatan/xalatan-29jan04petition.pdf.
13. Cockburn I, Henderson R. Public-private interaction in pharmaceutical research. Proce Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93(23):12725-30.
14. Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings. Res Policy. 1998; 26(7-8):773-6.
15. Cohen WM, Nelson R, Walsh J. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manage Sci. 2002;48(1):1-23.
16. Narin F, Olivastro D. Status report: linkage between technology and science. Res Policy. 1992;21(3): 237-49.
17. US Senate, Joint Economic Committee. The benefits of medical research and the role of the NIH [Internet]. Washington (DC): The Committee; 2000 May 17 [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.faseb.org/portals/0/pdfs/opa/2008/nih_research_benefits.pdf.
18. Toole AA. Does public scientific research complement private investment in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry? J Law Econ. 2007;50(1):81-104.
19. Although less than half of government funding for biomedical research is for clinical research (Note 1), another potential direct impact on the part of the government is via funding of clinical research on drugs, including sponsorship or cosponsorship of the clinical trials used for FDA approval. The various incentives offered by the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, and tax credits provided for research and development in general, represent other types of direct support that our analyses do not capture.
20. Tauzin B. The next 50 years of medical innovation has already started. Washington (DC): Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 2008 Nov 1.
21. US Patent and Trademark Office. USPTO patent full-text and image database [Internet]. Alexandria (VA): The Office; [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/index.jsp.
22. National Library of Medicine. PubMed [home page on the Internet]. Bethesda (MD): NLM; [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.
23. Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA [home page on the Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/.
24. Food and Drug Administration. Orange book: approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/default.cfm.
25. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) [home page on the Internet]. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/.
26. Food and Drug Administration. Fast track, accelerated approval, and priority review [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2010 May 28 [cited 2011 Jan 18]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/SpeedingAccesstoImportantNewTherapies/ucm128291.htm#priorityreview.
27. Hunt M. Changing patterns of pharmaceutical innovation [Internet]. Washington (DC): National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM) Research and Educational Foundation; 2002 May 28 [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.nihcm.org/pdf/innovations.pdf.
28. Arno PS, Feiden KL. Against the odds: the story of AIDS drug development, politics, and profits. New York (NY): HarperCollins; 1992.
29. Food and Drug Administration. Antiretroviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV infection [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/HIVandAIDSActivities/ucm118915.htm.
30. Of the ninety-nine drugs without patents in the Orange Book, about one-fourth (twenty-three) were antibiotics of certain types that were not subject to the Orange Book regime until 2008. After these drugs are excluded, drugs without patents accounted for only 5 percent of sales reported in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) in 2006, half of which came from one drug. The manufacturers of new drugs without patents rely solely on market exclusivity to recoup their investment.
31. Sampat B. When do applicants search for prior art? J Law Econ. 2010; 53(2):399-416.
32. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M. Patents, citations, and innovations: a window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2002.
33. National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators 2004 [Internet]. Arlington (VA): National Science Foundation; 2004 May 4 [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/.
34. To access the Appendix, click on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online.
35. Biotechnology Industry Organization. Guide to biotechnology 2008 [Internet]. Washington (DC): BIO; 2008 [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/BiotechGuide2008.pdf.
36. Powell W, Koput K, Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm Sci Q. 1996;116(41):116-45.
37. Alcácer J, Gittelman M, Sampat B. Applicant and examiner citations in US patents: an overview and analysis. Res Policy. 2009;38(2):415-27.
38. Roach M, Cohen W. Patent citations as indicators of knowledge flows from public research [Internet]. Paper presented at: International Schumpeter Society Conference on Innovation, Organisation, Sustain-ability, and Crises; 2010 Jun 21-24; Aalborg, Denmark. Available from: http://www.schumpeter2010.dk/index.php/schumpeter/schumpeter2010/paper/view/344/112.
39. Lampe R (DePaul University, College of Commerce). Strategic citation [Internet]. Rochester (NY): Social Science Research Network; 2010 Jan 29 [cited 2011 Jan 18]. (Working Paper Series; abstract only). Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=984123.
40. US Government Accountability Office. Technology transfer: reporting requirements for federally sponsored inventions need revision [Internet]. Washington (DC): GAO; 1999 Aug 12 [cited 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99242.pdf.
41. Many scholars, such as Carolyn Asbury, believe that public-sector research has traditionally played an especially prominent role in the de velopment of orphan drugs-drugs that target rare diseases. To investi gate this question, we looked sepa rately at drugs with and without or phan designations, as indicated at Drugs@FDA. About 16 percent (59 of 379) of the drugs in our sample were orphan drugs. These drugs were more likely to have NIH patents than nonorphans (24 percent versus 6 percent; p ≤ 0:01) and more likely to cite NIH patents or publications (66 percent versus 44 percent; p < 0:01). Asbury CH. Orphan drugs: medical versus market value. Lexington (MA): Lexington Books; 1985.
42. Azoulay P, Michigan R, Sampat B. The anatomy of medical school patenting. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(20):2049-56.
43. Sampat B. Academic patents and access to medicines in developing countries. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(1):9-17.
44. Most of the drugs that we studied (324 of 379) had neither academic patents nor patents citing government funding. A handful (7) had NIH patents but not academic patents. And some (21) had no patents indicating government funding but did have academic patents.
45. When Salomeh Keyhani and colleagues examined data on NIH funding of clinical trials, they found that the NIH role was much stronger with HIV drugs than other classes of drugs. Keyhani S, Diener-West M, Powe N. Do drug prices reflect development time and government investment? Med Care. 2005; 43(8):753-62.
46. Epstein S. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 1996.