The Inflation Reduction Act's Impact Upon Late-Stage R&D
Bowen, H. P.; O'Loughlin, G.; Schleicher, C.; Schulthess, D.
Show abstract
Background: The impact of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) upon late-stage developments has been assumed to be limited. The Congressional Budget Office's IRA analysis excluded post-approval innovation, potentially overlooking substantial economic risks to drug developers and declines in the availability of treatments in areas of high unmet medical need such as oncology. Methods: A total of 1148 secondary trials from 364 FDA-approved medicines, published from 2018 to 2025, were obtained from Biomedtracker and clinicaltrials.gov. Using fractional multinomial logit, we model the share distribution of secondary indication studies across 19 disease groups and assess the change in this distribution post-IRA. We also assessed the number of secondary treatment studies pre- vs. post-IRA using multiple linear regression. Results: After the IRA's introduction, small molecule follow-on studies in oncology exhibited a statistically significant 35% decline (R2 = .48, p < 0.014) and lead indication small molecule oncology approvals exhibited a statistically significant 27% decline (R2 = .70, p < 0.002). We also find a statistically significant 14% decline in the share of orphan oncology studies pre- vs. post-IRA (p<0.001). Research Conclusions: This study's results refute claims that the IRA would have minimal negative effects on patient access or late-stage biopharmaceutical R&D. We hope this study reinvigorates debate about the law's unintended consequences and encourages thoughtful policy solutions, as the IRA manifestly creates disincentives that negatively impact patients seeking needed new medicines, particularly those requiring cures addressing metastatic late-stage cancers.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Reproducibility and transparency characteristics of oncology research evidence 93%
- Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures of Physician-Authors Publishing in High-Impact U.S. Medical Journals: A Comparison of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine 91%
- CATALYST trial protocol: A multicentre, open-label, phase II, multi-arm trial for an early and accelerated evaluation of the potential treatments for COVID-19 in hospitalised adults 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 92%
- The effects on clinical trial activity of direct funding and taxation policy interventions made by government: a systematic review 91%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of healthcare resource use and cost between influenza and COVID-19 vaccine coadministration and influenza vaccination only 89%
- Clinical Benefits and Budget Impact of Lenzilumab plus Standard of Care Compared with Standard of Care Alone for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in the United States from the Hospital Perspective 88%
- Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of the Next-Generation COVID-19 mRNA-1283 Vaccine in the United States 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- EFFECTIVENESS OF CASIRIVIMAB-IMDEVIMAB AND SOTROVIMAB MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY TREATMENT AMONG HIGH-RISK PATIENTS WITH SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION: A REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE 90%
- Strict lockdown versus flexible social distance strategy for COVID-19 disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis 89%
- Quantifying the impact of real-world evidence: the sacubitril/valsartan experience 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.