ArticleF1000Research2020
Public research funding and pharmaceutical prices: do Americans pay twice for drugs?
Article in F1000Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The complex price setting and reimbursement of non-industrial advanced therapy medicinal products.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Mechanisms Considering Public Investment in Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A Scoping Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- A Framework for Considering the Role of the Public Sector in R&D of Health Technology.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2025Review
- Debates over orphan drug pricing: a meta-narrative literature review.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Review
- REFINE-Lung implements a novel multi-arm randomised trial design to address possible immunotherapy overtreatment.The Lancet. Oncology · 2023Review
- Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing: Part 2: Off-Label Marketing-Consequences for Patients, Clinicians, and Researchers.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Acting Injectable HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis in the United States : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the debate over prescription drug pricing, some pharmaceutical industry critics claim that U.S. taxpayers pay twice for costly therapies, because publicly supported research is a major contributor to drug discovery and American taxpayers are inadequately rewarded for their research investment due to high drug prices. In fact, the empirical evidence supporting these claims is weak, and the pay twice argument distracts from important efforts to ensure that impactful new drugs continue to be developed and made widely available to patients who need them.
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.