Tomas J Philipson, A Mark Fendrick, Aarushi Kataria, Giuseppe Di Cera, Qi Zhao, Susu Guo, Attaullah Abbasi
{"title":"COVID-19 Biopharmaceutical Innovation and Industry Appropriation.","authors":"Tomas J Philipson, A Mark Fendrick, Aarushi Kataria, Giuseppe Di Cera, Qi Zhao, Susu Guo, Attaullah Abbasi","doi":"10.1515/fhep-2024-0049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rapid emergence of vaccines and therapeutics in response to the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrated the value of medical innovation. These advances not only led to enhanced patient welfare by reducing the disease's mortality and morbidity but also reduced the need for costly prevention measures, such as cuts in economic activity. This paper offers the first estimate of the portion of economic value generated by these medical innovations that was appropriated as earnings by the innovating companies, measured by the ratio of company earnings to the overall societal value generated by the innovations. To estimate the value and appropriation of COVID-19 innovations, one must necessarily make assumptions about what disease-specific and preventive activity would have been in the absence of these new innovations. To obtain robustness in our findings across such scenarios, we estimate industry appropriation across a wide range of counterfactual scenarios that would occur under no innovation. These scenarios include previous assessments of the contributing subparts of the value generated by the innovations. Our primary finding is that, within the large range of these counterfactual scenarios, upper-bound measures of the proportion of value appropriated by the industry ranged from 0.2 % to 4.6 % of the value generated by the vaccine and treatment innovations. Even though these are upper bound appropriation rates, they are significantly lower than those documented for other significant health sciences innovations. This suggests that COVID-19 vaccines and treatments were remarkable, not only in their swift development but also in the considerable societal value they provided, which extended far beyond the rewards to the innovating companies.</p>","PeriodicalId":38039,"journal":{"name":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2024-0049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The rapid emergence of vaccines and therapeutics in response to the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrated the value of medical innovation. These advances not only led to enhanced patient welfare by reducing the disease's mortality and morbidity but also reduced the need for costly prevention measures, such as cuts in economic activity. This paper offers the first estimate of the portion of economic value generated by these medical innovations that was appropriated as earnings by the innovating companies, measured by the ratio of company earnings to the overall societal value generated by the innovations. To estimate the value and appropriation of COVID-19 innovations, one must necessarily make assumptions about what disease-specific and preventive activity would have been in the absence of these new innovations. To obtain robustness in our findings across such scenarios, we estimate industry appropriation across a wide range of counterfactual scenarios that would occur under no innovation. These scenarios include previous assessments of the contributing subparts of the value generated by the innovations. Our primary finding is that, within the large range of these counterfactual scenarios, upper-bound measures of the proportion of value appropriated by the industry ranged from 0.2 % to 4.6 % of the value generated by the vaccine and treatment innovations. Even though these are upper bound appropriation rates, they are significantly lower than those documented for other significant health sciences innovations. This suggests that COVID-19 vaccines and treatments were remarkable, not only in their swift development but also in the considerable societal value they provided, which extended far beyond the rewards to the innovating companies.
期刊介绍:
Forum for Health Economics & Policy (FHEP) showcases articles in key substantive areas that lie at the intersection of health economics and health policy. The journal uses an innovative structure of forums to promote discourse on the most pressing and timely subjects in health economics and health policy, such as biomedical research and the economy, and aging and medical care costs. Forums are chosen by the Editorial Board to reflect topics where additional research is needed by economists and where the field is advancing rapidly. The journal is edited by Katherine Baicker, David Cutler and Alan Garber of Harvard University, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Dana Goldman of the University of Southern California and RAND Corporation, Neeraj Sood of the University of Southern California, Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson of University of Chicago, Pinar Karaca Mandic of the University of Minnesota, and John Romley of the University of Southern California. FHEP is sponsored by the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. A subscription to the journal also includes the proceedings from the National Bureau of Economic Research''s annual Frontiers in Health Policy Research Conference. Topics: Economics, Political economics, Biomedical research and the economy, Aging and medical care costs, Nursing, Cancer studies, Medical treatment, Others related.