Taming big pharma with a new paradigm for financing medical r d l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 26

Taming Big Pharma with a new paradigm for financing medical R&D PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 60 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Taming Big Pharma with a new paradigm for financing medical R&D. James Packard Love Knowledge Ecology International 9 June 2007. Main idea: Separate market for innovation from market for product. Consequences of exclusive marketing rights to finance R&D on Access.

Download Presentation

Taming Big Pharma with a new paradigm for financing medical R&D

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Taming big pharma with a new paradigm for financing medical r d l.jpg

Taming Big Pharmawith a new paradigm for financing medical R&D

James Packard Love

Knowledge Ecology International

9 June 2007


Main idea separate market for innovation from market for product l.jpg

Main idea:Separate market for innovation from market for product


Consequences of exclusive marketing rights to finance r d on access l.jpg

Consequences of exclusive marketing rights to finance R&D on Access


Price of singulair as a share of per capita income in south africa l.jpg

Price of Singulair as a share of per capita income in South Africa

Income decile

2004 study

Percent of income


Bms sanofi prices for clopidogrel bisulfate plavix l.jpg

BMS/Sanofi prices for clopidogrel bisulfate (Plavix)

  • According to the Thai Ministry of Health, BMS/Sanofi prices for the heart drug Plavix were unaffordable for 80 percent of patients

  • The BMS/Sanofi price was more than eleven times the price of an imported generic


Novartis at the world bank in 2004 l.jpg

Novartis at the World Bank in 2004

  • We consider India to be a market of 50 million


Us cancer weapons out of reach robert wittes june 15 2004 washington post l.jpg

US: Cancer Weapons, Out of ReachRobert Wittes, June 15, 2004, Washington Post

Third-party payers will not react passively to pricing that increasingly threatens their balance sheets, especially as more drugs like these are commercialized over the next few years. They will carefully scrutinize all proposed uses of expensive new drugs. Historically, an FDA judgment of "safe and effective" -- the statutory criterion for drug approval -- has almost automatically triggered an agreement by payers to reimburse, which is the real gateway to widespread use and market success. We may now see payers deciding, for the first time, that certain novel "safe and effective" medicines are simply not worth paying for. In addition, payers will surely try to limit "off-label" uses of these drugs -- that is, uses other than the FDA-approved ones. Unlike other areas of medicine, physicians have commonly prescribed cancer drugs for a broader array of indications than specifically approved by the FDA, as clinical research routinely reveals additional uses after market introduction. A very high bar to new uses by payers is a virtual certainty.


Economics l.jpg

Economics


Slide9 l.jpg

  • According to the market research firm IMS, global sales for pharmaceutical products were $602 billion in 2005, or 1.35 percent of global GDP.

  • The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA) claims global private sector investments in R&D were about $51 billion -- 8.5 percent of global sales.


2005 global private r d as a percent of global sales l.jpg

2005 Global private R&D as a percent of global sales

Not R&D

R&D

Sources: IMS for sales, IFMPA for global private R&D


Slide11 l.jpg

  • Some experts believe the current system of market monopolies for drug sales increased 2006 drug prices by $400 to $480 billion


Targets of r d l.jpg

Targets of R&D


Slide13 l.jpg

US FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) new drug approvals (NDAs) approved from 1990 to 2004

  • Of the 1,284 new drug approvals (NDAs) approved from 1990 to 2004, only 289, or 22.5%, were for "priority" reviews, defined as a product that has "Significant improvement compared to marketed products in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a disease." Of these, only 183 (14.3 percent of the total) were new molecular entities (NMEs) classified as priority products.


Interesting facts l.jpg

Interesting facts

  • The size of clinical trials for “priority” products are about half as large as for “standard” approvals

  • In the drug label section on clinical trials, FDA does not cite about half the trials the were done.


Slide15 l.jpg

  • Very little investment in products that serve poor populations

    • WHO Type II and III diseases

    • Products designed for resource poor settings

  • Poor incentives to develop products that are used as last resort or only in emergencies

  • Excessive investment in R&D projects on little scientific value or limited medical importance


Slide16 l.jpg

Developed, Low Mortality Developing (LMD) and High Mortality Developing (HMD) countries

Burden of Disease by Cause and Level of Development

Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY), per 100,000 persons.

Source: WHO GBD 2002


Marketing l.jpg

Marketing


The new paradigm l.jpg

The new paradigm

  • Change trade system to focus on R&D, rather than IPR

    • Include public and private sector R&D

    • Greater emphasis of global sharing of the costs of public goods, such as public financing for clinical trials

  • Reform the system of incentives

    • Replace monopolies with prizes


Prizes rather than monopolies as the pull incentive mechanism l.jpg

Prizes, rather than monopolies, as the “pull” incentive mechanism


Slide20 l.jpg

  • Patent system intact through product development and market approval

  • However, for approved drugs, monopoly is eliminated. Generic companies can freely compete

  • Medical Innovation Prizes reward developers of new products

    • Every new product is a “winner,” but the sizes of the prizes vary according to the benefits they deliver


2005 sanders proposal l.jpg

2005 Sanders proposal

  • Prizes equal to share of US GDP

    • .5 percent in 2005 proposal ($66 billion in 2006)

    • Some consideration of higher funding rates.

  • Payments to innovators over 10 year period are based upon incremental health care benefits

  • Organizations that develop new drugs compete against each other, on the basis of the incremental impact of inventions on health care outcomes


Some of the fund is allocated to priority projects l.jpg

Some of the fund is allocated to priority projects

  • Global neglected diseases

    • 4 percent

  • Orphan drugs

    • 10 percent

  • Research on AIDS, including AIDS vaccines, global infectious diseases, and medicines to treat bio-terrorism

    • 4 percent


Financing prizes l.jpg

Financing prizes

  • In the US, you could easily finance the prizes out of the savings you would get from lower prices on drugs

    • Medicare Part D outlays will top $150 billion in some scenarios

    • US now pays for medicines through other parts of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, special federal programs for specific diseases conditions or populations, and for federal employees

  • With elimination of monopoly, prices would fall by more than 80 percent, on average


Benefits l.jpg

Benefits

  • Access

    • All product available at marginal costs

      • End of prize sensitive formularies for drugs.

      • Costs of chronic treatments for AIDS and many other severe illnesses fall to less than $1 per day.

    • U.S. no longer exports higher prices to world

  • Innovation

    • R&D efforts focused on products that actually provide improved health outcomes.

  • Efficiency

    • Much cheaper system to operate


February 2005 r d treaty proposal l.jpg

February 2005 R&D Treaty Proposal


Treaty mechanisms overview l.jpg

Committee on Priority

Medical Research (CPMRD)

Assembly for Medical Innovation (AMI)

Treaty parties

Committee on Open

Public Goods (COPG)

Council Medical Innovation (CMI)

Committee on Exceptionally

Useful Projects (COEPUP)

Committee on open

Access publishing (COAP)

Report of treaty

Qualifying projects

Committee on Technology,

Transfer and Capacity (CTEC)

Committee on TraditionalKnowledge (CTK)

Country B

Another

country’s

project

PrizeFund

International

Projects

e.g. PPPs

Buy out

Approved

drugs

Purchase of

patented drugs

Directed

research

Treaty mechanisms overview

Treaty Secretariat

Country A

13%


  • Login