Advertisement

The Value of Medical Innovation Versus Industry Rewards

Published:December 08, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.001

      Highlights

      • Many policy debates center on the idea that the supply side is capturing too much of the value of the medical innovation that they generate.
      • We analyze a large data set with > 9000 cost-effectiveness measures for various interventions and find that a large share of the value of medical innovation accrues to patients on the demand side given that the revenue to innovators is often far less than the patient’s value of these medical innovations.
      • Our research finds that a large share of the value of medical innovation accrues to patients on the demand side given that the revenue to innovators is often far less than the patient’s value of these medical innovations.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      This article provides systematic evidence on the share of the value of health generated by drugs and other healthcare goods and services that accrue to patients on the demand side versus the manufacturers on the supply side.

      Methods

      We exploit a large data set with > 9000 cost-effectiveness measures for various interventions, which we convert into measures of the shares of the value of improved health appropriated by the supply side using literature estimates of how patients value gains in health.

      Results

      We find that if patients value a quality-adjusted life-year at $450 000 the median share appropriated for drugs on the supply side is approximately 6% and has declined at 0.1% per year between 1997 and 2019. This compares with other healthcare interventions, such as screenings or medical procedures, which have a median value of 9% but decline at 0.3% per year over the same period. If patients value a quality-adjusted life-year at $150 000, the median share appropriated for drugs and other healthcare interventions on the supply side is approximately 18% and 27%, respectively. Our estimates of appropriations are upper bounds, partly due to QALYs not capturing full producer value.

      Conclusions

      Many policy debates center on the idea that the supply side is capturing too much of the value of the medical innovation that they generate. We find that, for these interventions, a large share of the value of medical innovation accrues to patients on the demand side given that the revenue to innovators is often far less than the patient’s value of these medical innovations.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Value in Health
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Philipson T.J.
        • Jena A.B.
        Who benefits from new medical technologies? Estimates of consumer and producer surpluses for HIV/AIDS drugs.
        Forum Health Econ Policy. 2006; 9: 1-33
        • Philipson T.J.
        • Jena A.B.
        Dividing the benefits from medical breakthroughs.
        The Milken Rev. 2006; 1: 46-56
        • Lakdawalla D.N.
        • Sun E.C.
        • Jena A.B.
        • Reyes C.M.
        • Goldman D.P.
        • Philipson T.J.
        An economic evaluation of the war on cancer.
        J Health Econ. 2010; 29: 333-346
        • Grabowski D.C.
        • Lakdawalla D.N.
        • Goldman D.P.
        • et al.
        The large social value resulting from use of statins warrants steps to improve adherence and broaden treatment.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31: 2276-2285
        • Mansfield E.
        Appropriating the returns from investments in R&D capital.
        in: European Industrial Restructuring in the 1990s. Palgrave Macmillan, London, United Kingdom1992: 331-356
        • Mansfield E.
        • Rapoport J.
        • Romeo A.
        • Wagner S.
        • Beardsley G.
        Social and private rates of return from industrial innovations.
        Q J Econ. 1977; 91: 221-240
        • Nordhaus W.D.
        Schumpeterian profits in the American economy: theory and measurement. NBER Working Paper.
        https://www.nber.org/papers/w10433
        Date accessed: September 10, 2022
        • Hult K.J.
        • Jaffe S.
        • Philipson T.J.
        How does technological change affect quality-adjusted prices in health care? Systematic evidence from thousands of innovations.
        Am J Health Econ. 2018; 4: 433-453
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Sandberg E.A.
        • Bell C.M.
        • Stone P.W.
        • Chapman R.H.
        Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2000; 19: 92-109
        • Dunn A.
        • Hall A.
        • Dauda S.
        Are medical care prices still declining? A re-examination based on cost-effectiveness studies.
        Econometrica. 2022; 90: 859-886
        • Dionne P.A.
        • Ali F.
        • Grobler M.
        The impact of recent generic drug price policies on pharmaceutical innovation: a theoretical rationale and proposal of a method supporting innovation in areas of unmet medical need.
        Value Health. 2013; 16: A492
        • Viscusi W.K.
        Best estimate selection bias in the value of a statistical life.
        J Benefit Cost Anal. 2018; 9: 205-246
        • Robinson L.A.
        • Hammitt J.K.
        Valuing reductions in fatal illness risks: implications of recent research.
        Health Econ. 2016; 25: 1039-1052
        • Viscusi W.K.
        The role of publication selection bias in estimates of the value of a statistical life.
        Am J Health Econ. 2015; 1: 27-52
        • Viscusi W.K.
        • Aldy J.E.
        The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world.
        J Risk Uncertainty. 2003; 27: 5-76
        • Viscusi W.K.
        • Masterman C.
        Anchoring biases in international estimates of the value of a statistical life.
        J Risk Uncertainty. 2017; 54: 103-128
        • Snyder B.
        EPA guidelines for regulatory impact analysis. University Library of Munich.
        https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpot/9602003.html
        Date accessed: September 10, 2022
      1. Mortality risk valuation. Environmental Protection Agency.
      2. Guidance on treatment of the economic value of a statistical life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation analyses – 2015 adjustment. US Department of Transportation.
        https://perma.cc/Y8DU-XV9Q
        Date accessed: September 10, 2022
      3. Drug pricing investigation, majority staff report. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform.