PharmacoEconomics & Outcomes News 447 - 28 Feb 2004 New framework needed for drug development The current business model that is used to fund research and development (R&D) of new medicines must change, say Dr Tim Hubbard from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK, and Dr James Love from the Consumer Project on Technology, Washington, US. They argue that, under the existing system, new drugs are unaffordable for many people in both the developed and developing world; this is directly attributable to the business model using a single payment to cover both the cost of manufacture of a drug and the manufacturers’ expenditure on R&D to discover this drug. Intellectual property rules protect the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies; a 20-year marketing monopoly on a patented invention prevents competition from manufacturers of generic medicines. Other failings associated with this business model include the lack of free exchange of information between researchers and a consequent reduction in the progress of research, note Drs Hubbard and Love. The existing system also rewards products that offer little if any increase in efficacy over existing drugs; so-called ‘me too’ products. An additional problem is that pharmaceutical companies focus their R&D priorities on the more lucrative health markets, in preference to researching diseases that primarily afflict the poor. These problems could be overcome by the creation of separate competitive markets for R&D and sales, suggest Drs Hubbard and Love. They say that a new virtual market in R&D could provide incentives to develop new drugs, with nationally directed R&D funds compensating researchers and drug developers through various means, such as large cash prizes to successful firms or non-profit drug developers, direct public sector involvement in drug development, new open collaborative development models, or government imposed research mandates. If we can change the trade framework for global healthcare and move away from marketing monopolies, we will have a system of drug development that addresses real health priorities and one that enables medicines to be accessible for everyone, conclude Drs Hubbard and Love. Public Library of Science. The future of drug development. Media Release 1426: 2, 17 Feb 2004. Available from: URL: http://www.eurekalert.org 809031541 1 PharmacoEconomics & Outcomes News 28 Feb 2004 No. 447 1173-5503/10/0447-0001/$14.95 Adis © 2010 Springer International Publishing AG. All rights reserved

New framework needed for drug development

Download PDF Report

Upload
buidiep
View
213
Download
1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

PharmacoEconomics & Outcomes News 447 - 28 Feb 2004

New framework needed for drugdevelopment

The current business model that is used to fundresearch and development (R&D) of new medicinesmust change, say Dr Tim Hubbard from the WellcomeTrust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK, and Dr JamesLove from the Consumer Project on Technology,Washington, US.

They argue that, under the existing system, new drugsare unaffordable for many people in both the developedand developing world; this is directly attributable to thebusiness model using a single payment to cover both thecost of manufacture of a drug and the manufacturers’expenditure on R&D to discover this drug. Intellectualproperty rules protect the financial interests ofpharmaceutical companies; a 20-year marketingmonopoly on a patented invention prevents competitionfrom manufacturers of generic medicines.

Other failings associated with this business modelinclude the lack of free exchange of informationbetween researchers and a consequent reduction in theprogress of research, note Drs Hubbard and Love. Theexisting system also rewards products that offer little ifany increase in efficacy over existing drugs; so-called‘me too’ products. An additional problem is thatpharmaceutical companies focus their R&D priorities onthe more lucrative health markets, in preference toresearching diseases that primarily afflict the poor.

These problems could be overcome by the creation ofseparate competitive markets for R&D and sales,suggest Drs Hubbard and Love. They say that a newvirtual market in R&D could provide incentives todevelop new drugs, with nationally directed R&D fundscompensating researchers and drug developers throughvarious means, such as large cash prizes to successfulfirms or non-profit drug developers, direct public sectorinvolvement in drug development, new opencollaborative development models, or governmentimposed research mandates.

If we can change the trade framework for globalhealthcare and move away from marketing monopolies,we will have a system of drug development thataddresses real health priorities and one that enablesmedicines to be accessible for everyone, concludeDrs Hubbard and Love.Public Library of Science. The future of drug development. Media Release 1426:2, 17 Feb 2004. Available from: URL: http://www.eurekalert.org 809031541