Returns on Research and Development for 1990s New Drug Introductions
Background: Previously published research by the authors found that returns on research and development (R&D) for drugs introduced into the US market in the 1970s and 1980s were highly skewed and that the top decile of new drugs accounted for close to half the overall market value. In the 1990s, however, the R&D environment for new medicines underwent a number of changes including the following: the rapid growth of managed-care organisations; indications that R&D costs were rising at a rate faster than that of overall inflation; new market strategies of major firms aimed at simultaneous launches across world markets; and the increased attention focused on the pharmaceutical industry in the political arena.
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the worldwide returns on R&D for drugs introduced into the US market in the first half of the 1990s, given that there have been significant changes to the R&D environment for new medicines over the past decade or so.
Results: Analysis of new drugs entering the market from 1990 to 1994 resulted in findings similar to those of the earlier research — pharmaceutical R&D is characterised by a highly skewed distribution of returns and a mean industry internal rate of return modestly in excess of the cost of capital.
Conclusions: Although the distribution of returns on R&D for new drugs continues to be highly skewed, the analysis reveals that a number of dynamic forces are currently at work in the industry. In particular, R&D costs as well as new drug introductions, sales and contribution margins increased significantly compared with their 1980s values.
KeywordsContribution Margin Capital Asset Price Model Generic Competition Patent Expiry Hurdle Rate
This paper was supported by an unrestricted grant from the Program in Pharmaceuticals and Health Economics at Duke University. We are indebted to a number of individuals who commented on prior versions of this paper, including Mike Scherer, Dennis Mueller, Bill Comanor, Patricia Danzon, Vivian Ho, Mike Morissey, David Grabowski, Robert Helms, Adrian Towse, Paul Meyer, and Steve Propper. Any errors that remain in the manuscript are the responsibility of the authors.
The Program receives support from various foundations, health sector entities and pharmaceuticals firms.
- 4.Shulman S, Healy EM, Lasagna L, editors. PBMs: reshaping the pharmaceutical distribution network. New York: Haworth Press, 1998Google Scholar
- 5.DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2002. In PressGoogle Scholar
- 6.Congress of the United States. Congressional Budget Office. How health care reform affects pharmaceutical research and development. Washington: US Government Printing Office, Jun 1994Google Scholar
- 7.Congress of the United States. Congressional Budget Office. How increased competition from generic drugs has affected prices and returns in the pharmaceutical industry. Washington: US Government Printing Office, Jul 1998Google Scholar
- 9.Myers SC, Shyum-Sunder L. Measuring pharmaceutical industry risk and the cost-of-capital. In: Helms RB, editor. Competitive strategies in the pharmaceutical industry. Washington (DC): AEI Press, 1996: 208–37Google Scholar
- 10.US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Pharmaceutical R&D. Costs, risks and rewards. Washington (DC): US Government Printing Office, 1993Google Scholar
- 11.Myers SC, Howe CD. A life-cycle financial model of pharmaceutical R&D: working paper; program on the pharmaceutical industry. Cambridge (MA): MIT, 1997Google Scholar
- 12.Poterba JM, Summers LH. A CEO survey of US companies time horizons and hurdle rates. Sloan Manage Rev 1995; Fall: 43–53Google Scholar
- 14.Thomas LG. Industrial policy and international competitiveness in the pharmaceutical industry. In: Helms B, editor. Competitive strategies in the pharmaceutical industry. Washington (DC): AEI Press, 1996: 107–129Google Scholar
- 15.Annual report: the Med Ad News 500: the world’s best-selling medicines. Med Ad News 2001; 20 (5)Google Scholar
- 24.Grabowski H. Drug regulation and innovation. Washington: AEI Press, 1976Google Scholar
- 26.Scherer FM. Technological maturity and waning economic growth. Arts and Sciences 1978; 1: 7–11Google Scholar
- 27.Anderson WH, Fitzgerald CQ, Manasco PK. Current and future applications of pharmacogenomics. New Horiz 1999; 7 (2): 262–29Google Scholar
- 28.The fruits of genomics: drug pipelines face indigestion until the new biology ripens. New York: Lehman Brothers, Jan 2001Google Scholar