Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38756835›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2023

A holistic view of innovation incentives and pharmaceutical policy reform.

Rachel Sachs, Loren Adler, Richard Frank

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rachel SachsSchool of Law, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, United States.
Loren AdlerBrookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 824, Washington, DC 20036, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9804-4049
Richard FrankBrookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 824, Washington, DC 20036, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Inflation Reduction Act is set to transform how Medicare pays for prescription drugs, most notably by enabling Medicare to negotiate for the prices of certain high-cost medications. The pharmaceutical industry argues it will drastically reduce innovation, but a full analysis of its impacts on innovation requires considering not merely the number of new drugs produced but their clinical value. Several features of the negotiation process aim to minimize its impacts on innovation, particularly for drugs with high clinical value. The Biden Administration has also implemented several policies alongside the Inflation Reduction Act, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health and a National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative, that are designed to reward and promote clinically valuable innovation. Taken together, these policies should go a long way toward mitigating any negative impacts on new drug development and may even better promote the development of higher-value drugs.

Indexed as

drug price negotiationInflation Reduction ActinnovationMedicare Part Dprescription drugs

Identifiers

PMID38756835
PMCPMC10985921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.