Resource allocation principles and process

Public Preferences About Fairness and the Ethics of Allocating Scarce Medical Interventions

Fair allocation of health care resources is a challenge that we can't solve strictly with some criteria or principles. Of course, we do need some benchmark but we require a fair and transparent process. This is precisely the focus of a chapter by Govind Persad in a recent book. The key issue is how in fact resources should be allocated.

Society is ultimately interested not only in empirical surveys of how its members believe medical interventions should be allocated, but also in answers to the normative question of how medical resources should be allocated.

Survey methods, experts opinion,...

Even though public attitudes do not directly determine the solution to moral problems, empirical research into public attitudes can be useful in a variety of  ways. By showing which beliefs are popular among the public, or which beliefs are points of division, empirical research can help to focus moral inquiry on those claims or beliefs, thereby ensuring that philosophical reasoning is relevant to real-world problems. Furthermore, even though popularity does not constitute correctness, the unpopularity of a normative position can justify placing it under scrutiny.

Pharma R&D failure and success

Clinical Development Success Rates 2006-2015

In the russian rulette as a lethal game of chance you may have 1/6 chance of being shot. If the chamber of the revolver holds 6, a 16,6%.
In drug industry the probability of R&D failure is 90.4%. We all know that in the drug cost we are paying also for failures, but we forget the figure.

These are the key takeaways of the report:

• The overall likelihood of approval (LOA) from Phase I for all developmental candidates was 9.6%, and 11.9% for all indications outside of Oncology.
• Rare disease programs and programs that utilized selection biomarkers had higher success rates at each phase of development vs. the overall dataset.
• Chronic diseases with high populations had lower LOA from Phase I vs. the overall dataset.
• Of the 14 major disease areas, Hematology had the highest LOA from Phase I (26.1%) and Oncology had the lowest (5.1%).Sub-indication analysis within Oncology revealed hematological cancers had 2x higher LOA from Phase I than solid tumors.
• Oncology drugs had a 2x higher rate of first cycle approval than Psychiatric drugs, which had the lowest percent of first-cycle review approvals. Oncology drugs were also approved the fastest of all 14 disease areas.
• Phase II clinical programs continue to experience the lowest success rate of the four development phases, with only 30.7% of developmental candidates advancing to Phase III.

PS. The growth in R&D expenses was 14% in 2016, while revenues grew 4% (p.36).

Public funding of succesful Pharma R&D

Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016

If we consider the 210 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010–2016, then you'll find that NIH funding contributed to published research associated with every one. A PNAS article explains that:

Collectively, this research involved 200,000 years of grant funding totaling more than $100 billion. The analysis shows that 90% of this funding represents basic research related to the biological targets for drug action rather than the drugs themselves. The role of NIH funding thus complements industry research and development, which focuses predominantly on applied research. This work underscores the breath and significance
of public investment in the development of new therapeutics and the risk that reduced research funding would slow the pipeline for treating morbid disease.

This public funding is forgotten in the costs of a new molecule. Although in the price, the manufacturer surplus doesn't remunerate such contribution. Some adjustment should be applied, to be fair.

 Brassai at Mapfre Foundation in Barcelona