ReviewThe Milbank quarterly2011
An empirical review of major legislation affecting drug development: past experiences, effects, and unintended consequences.
Review in The Milbank quarterly, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evaluation of the US public-private Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Accelerator (CARB-X) initiative.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Reconceiving orphan drug market exclusivity as a conditional public-law entitlement: a sustainable regulatory governance model with comparative lessons for China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The Orphan Drug Act at 40: Legislative Triumph and the Challenges of Success.The Milbank quarterly · 2024Article
- Pharmaceutical policy and innovation for rare diseases: A narrative review.F1000Research · 2023Review
- Guidance for pediatric use in prescription information for novel medicinal products in the EU and the US.PloS one · 2022Article
- Reporting of Study Participant Demographic Characteristics and Demographic Representation in Premarketing and Postmarketing Studies of Novel Cancer Therapeutics.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Development and Use of Gene Therapy Orphan Drugs-Ethical Needs for a Broader Cooperation Between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Society.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
- What Is the Purpose of the Orphan Drug Act?PLoS medicine · 2017Article
- Forces influencing generic drug development in the United States: a narrative review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2016Review
- The special case of gene therapy pricing.Nature biotechnology · 2014Article
- Introduction to a supplement on innovative approaches to studying health outcomes in rare diseases.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Article
- NIH inventions translate into drugs and biologics with high public health impact.Nature biotechnology · 2014Article
- The most transformative drugs of the past 25 years: a survey of physicians.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2013Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextWith the development of transformative drugs at a low point, numerous commentators have recommended new legislation that uses supplementary market exclusivity as an incentive to promote innovation in the pharmaceutical market.
methodsThis report provides an historical perspective on proposals for encouraging drug research. Four legislative programs have been primarily designed to offer market exclusivity to promote public health goals in the pharmaceutical or biomedical sciences: the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, and the pediatric exclusivity provisions of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997. I reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies that reported on the outcomes from these programs and evaluated the quality of evidence generated.
findingsAll four legislative programs generally have been regarded as successful, although such conclusions are largely based on straightforward descriptive reports rather than on more rigorous comparative data or analyses that sufficiently account for confounding. Overall, solid data demonstrate that market exclusivity incentives can attract interest from parties involved in drug development. However, using market exclusivity to promote innovation in the pharmaceutical market can be prone to misuse, leading to improper gains. In addition, important collateral effects have emerged with substantial negative public health implications.
conclusionsUsing market exclusivity to promote pharmaceutical innovation can lead to positive outcomes, but the practice is also characterized by waste and collateral effects. Certain practices, such as mechanisms for reevaluation and closer ties of incentives programs to public health outcomes, can help address these problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.