• All Topics
  • Health Technology Assessment (HTA)
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
OHE OHE
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

News & Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Close
OHE OHE
  • Research & Publications
  • News & Insights
  • Education
  • Innovation Policy Prize
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

Research & Publications

All Publications

Filter by:
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Biosimilars
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Combination Therapies
  • COVID-19 Research
  • Digital Health
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Emerging Markets
  • EQ-5D and PROMs
  • Health Care Systems
  • Health Data and Statistics
  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Precision Medicine
  • Real-World Evidence
  • Use of Medicines
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Vaccine Research
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
  • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
  • Value, Affordability and Decision Making

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Education

  • Education Hub
  • OHE Graduate School
  • EVIA Programme
  • IRA Programme

Innovation Policy Prize

  • The Prize Fund
  • 2022 Prize Fund

Latest Research & Publications

  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Israel

NICE enough? Do NICE’s Decision Outcomes Impact International HTA Decision-making?

andrew-butler-aUu8tZFNgfM-unsplash
Read more
  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Gene therapies

Are Recommendations for HTA of Gene Therapies Being Achieved?

cover 3
Read more
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Dermatology

The Burden of Hidradenitis Suppurativa on Patients, the NHS and Society

jakob-braun-HfOOKAPsE28-unsplash
Read more
  • Digital Health
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Mental Health

Dementia in the UK: Estimating the Potential Future Impact and Return on Research Investment

image option 1
Read more
  • Precision Medicine
  • Economics of Innovation

The Case for Expanding Uptake of Next-Generation Sequencing for Lung Cancer in Europe

NGS report_AdobeStock_406823942_portrait
Read more
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Economics of Innovation

A Novel Incentive Model for Uptake of Diagnostics to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance

Roche AMR diangostics_national-cancer-institute-2fyeLhUeYpg-unsplash_portrait
Read more
  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Pricing and Reimbursement

Real-World Evidence: Current Best Practice for Reimbursement Decision-Making

RWE_clay-banks-b5S4FrJb7yQ-unsplash_portrait
Read more
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Pricing and Reimbursement

Delivering the Triple Win: A Value-Based Approach to Pricing

Triple_Win_AdobeStock_249059909_portrait_v2
Read more
Close
OHE
  • All Publications

    Filter by:
    • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
    • Biosimilars
    • Cell and Gene Therapies
    • Chronic Diseases
    • Combination Therapies
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Digital Health
    • Drug Development/R&D
    • Emerging Markets
    • EQ-5D and PROMs
    • Health Care Systems
    • Health Data and Statistics
    • Health Technology Assessment
    • Precision Medicine
    • Real-World Evidence
    • Use of Medicines
    • Value-Based Pricing
    • Vaccine Research
    • Economics of Innovation
    • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
    • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
    • Value, Affordability and Decision Making
    • News
    • Events
    • Insights
    • Bulletin
    • Education Hub
    • OHE Graduate School
    • EVIA Programme
    • IRA Programme
    • The Prize Fund
    • 2022 Prize Fund
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
Back
  • Insight
11 min read 13th September 2021

The CBO Doesn’t Understand Investors

Our second blog in the OHE H.R. 3 Series discusses how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s analysis of H.R.3 does not reflect the reality of biopharmaceutical investing. Our second blog in the OHE H.R. 3 Series discusses how the Congressional…

Tim 3
Tim Watson
Share:
  •  Twitter
  •  LinkedIn
  •  Facebook
  • has-icon Email
Blog-2-quote-2-small

Our second blog in the OHE H.R. 3 Series discusses how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s analysis of H.R.3 does not reflect the reality of biopharmaceutical investing.

Our second blog in the OHE H.R. 3 Series discusses how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s analysis of H.R. 3 does not reflect the reality of biopharmaceutical investing.

Drawing on insights from interviews with 11 major investors from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, venture capital, and private equity communities, we conclude that the CBO’s estimates are likely to significantly underestimate the impact of H.R. 3 on innovation. We share 5 lessons we learned from our investor interviews which highlight that the process of investing is much more nuanced than in the CBO model.

How does the CBO model investment decisions?

The CBO has released three estimates of the potential impact of H.R. 3 and H.R. 3-style price caps on investment in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D). CBO’s initial two analyses do not explicitly model the investment decision problems facing the individual pharmaceutical or biotechnology company. They simply assume a value for the elasticity of drug innovation (i.e., the relationship between a reduction in revenue and outputs of innovation) to expected revenues based on estimates from the academic literature at an aggregate industry level. Our later blogs will unpack why these model parameters are problematic.

In a recently released white paper, the CBO attempts to explicitly model the decision problem facing the individual drug developer in a dynamic model with uncertainty. The model aims to reflect the behavior of a generalized investor choosing to progress a drug candidate into the next stage of clinical development if expected returns exceed expected costs. This is an overly simplified decision rule that does not accord with our findings from our investor interviews.

Our interviews suggest that the CBO’s generalized model is unlikely to reflect the reality of investment decision-making.

Lesson 1: Decisions are based on measures of risk and reward

Many of the investors interviewed stated that investment decisions boil down to the probability that the project results in an approved product and the value of the product if it is approved. Therefore investment decisions are made by balancing the probability of technical success and the probability of commercial success. While H.R. 3 impacts the probability of commercial success, because decisions are made based on these two probabilities together, investment in areas with high risk may also be affected.

Lesson 2: As any sensible investor would say, portfolio diversification is key

It is natural to think that the main object of interest for drug developers is the individual drug. It is also easier to model this type of behavior as the CBO do in their most recent analysis, which we cover in more detail later in this Series. However, this is not necessarily how investors make decisions in practice. Although identifying the basic risk-return profile of a given asset is an important ingredient in investment decisions, it is ultimately the returns across the portfolio that are important. In an R&D portfolio, the winners pay for the losers and significantly reducing the returns for the winners would have an adverse impact on the entire development portfolio — another unintended consequence of H.R. 3.

Lesson 3: The precipice of phase III marks a clear break in how investment decisions are made

Those we interviewed as part of our study brought our attention to a clear dividing line in how decisions are made. For early-stage decisions (i.e., well before phase III trials that are used to demonstrate that a drug is safe and effective), unmet need and the company’s historical areas of success were cited as important factors in investment decision making. However, on the precipice of phase III trials, sophisticated financial and/or commercial analysis is typically required to estimate the risk-adjusted return that we mentioned earlier. Any quantitative thresholds or cut-offs in willingness to invest were also a function of risk and conditional return.

Lesson 4: H.R. 3 would mainly alter the R&D landscape by reducing conditional returns

Our interviewees clearly believed that H.R. 3 would significantly reduce the reward side of their calculations rather than significantly altering the risk landscape, as the policy is currently written. As a result, biopharmaceutical companies would have less capital to allocate to R&D in general, but particularly for the higher-risk disease areas, such as neurology, where the underlying science is less well understood or where the regulators might be concerned about the safety of the drug.

Our interviewees painted a nuanced and complicated picture of the likely impact of H.R. 3. In the short term, from an investment standpoint, mid-size and big pharma would try to cope with expected revenue cuts by maintaining programs that had reached phase 2 or phase 3 through cuts to operating budgets. The response by venture capital and private equity, however, would be more immediate and pronounced. Those we interviewed predicted significant cuts to early-stage development activities resulting in a substantial decrease in the number of novel molecular entities over time. Early-stage capital is highly mobile and will seek the highest risk-adjusted returns, which would likely be in another sector outside of biopharmaceuticals.

Lesson 5: Not all innovation is born equal and H.R. 3 would hit the most valuable kind

Our interviews with investors suggest that a high-level policy evaluation such as the CBO analysis is likely to underestimate the potential risks to biopharmaceutical R&D, risks that would ultimately have adverse consequences for population health—both in the US and globally.  In the face of rapid scientific progress, such as we have seen with the development of COVID-19 vaccines and cell and gene therapies, using historical average relationships along with conservative projections of biopharmaceutical R&D outputs is not a sound basis for an unprecedented policy change. This is especially true in the case of H.R. 3, which targets products with the highest expected returns.

All models are wrong, but some are useful (so the saying goes). The CBO’s model will surely be wrong and most likely not useful for projecting the impacts of H.R. 3.

Next time in the OHE H.R. 3 Series

The next blog in the Series will focus on an important area of criticism of the CBO evidence, related to their measure of pharmaceutical innovation and what it fails to tell us about the impact of H.R. 3.

 

  • Economics of Innovation
  • Health Policy and Regulation

Related Insights

On the dollar money are white medicine pills.
  • Insight
  • May 2023

The US Inflation Reduction Act: What Do the Experts Think?

Read more
Slovak discounting_andrik-langfield-0rTCXZM7Xfo-unsplash_landscape
  • Insight
  • May 2023

Setting the Right Discount Rate for HTA in the Slovak Republic

Read more
Optimise_AdobeStock_576507456_landscape
  • Insight
  • April 2023

How Restrictive are NICE ‘Optimised’ Decisions?

Read more
Fishing on the lake at sunset. Fishing background.
  • Insight
  • February 2023

Fishing for Innovative Drugs with the ODRS: Potential Benefits and Challenges

Read more
footer_ohe_logo

Leading intellectual authority on global health economics

Sign Up for OHE Insights, Events & News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

Research & Publications

News & Insights

Innovation Policy Prize

Education

Events

About Us

OHE Experts

Contact Us

Sign Up for OHE Insights, Events & News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

The Office of Health Economics (OHE) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (registered number 09848965) and its registered office is at 2nd Floor Goldings House, Hay’s Galleria, 2 Hay’s Lane, London, SE1 2HB.

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookies Policy

© 2023 Website Design

An error has occurred, please try again later.An error has occurred, please try again later.

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in .

 Twitter
 Facebook
 LinkedIn
 Copy
 Email
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!