Financial Anatomy of Biomedical Research | Research, Methods, Statistics | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.175.212.130. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Hall P. The Innovative Milieu, in Cities in CivilizationNew York, NY: Pantheon; 1998
2.
O'Mara M. Cities of Knowledge, Cold War Science and the Search for the Next Silicon ValleyPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004
3.
US Census Bureau.  Statistical Abstract of the United States, Science and TechnologyWashington, DC: US Census Bureau; 1999
4.
 Biotech 2010 Web page. Available at: http://www.massbiotech2010.org. Accessed June 19, 2005
5.
 Trends in US Funding for Biomedical ResearchSan Francisco: The Center for the Health Care Professions, University of California, San Francisco; 1995. Available at: http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/summaries/trends_summary.html. Accessed June 15, 2005
6.
Institute of Medicine.  Strengthening Health Research in America: Philanthropy's RoleWashington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999
7.
 National health accounts: definitions, sources, and methods used in the NHE 2003 services and products. Baltimore, Md: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/definitions-sources-methods/default-03.asp. Accessed June 16, 2005
8.
 Biotech 2005 Life Sciences: A Move Towards PredictabilitySan Francisco: Burrill & Co LLC; 2005
9.
 Biomedical research and development price index (BRDPI). Bethesda, Md: Office of Science and Policy Planning. Available at: http://ospp.od.nih.gov/ecostudies/brdpi.asp. Accessed June 16, 2005
10.
Health Accounts.  Baltimore, Md: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe. Accessed June 16, 2005
11.
National Health Accounts.  Definitions, sources, and methods used in the NHE 2003 introduction. Baltimore, Md: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/definitions-sources-methods/default.asp. Accessed June 16, 2005
12.
 Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, 2004. Arlington, Va: National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Statistics; 2005. Publication No. NSF 05-307
13.
Foundation Growth and Giving Estimates.  2004 Preview. New York, NY: The Foundation Center; 2005
14.
Foundation Giving Trends 2000. . New York, NY: The Foundation Center; 2001
15.
Foundation Giving Trends 2005. . New York, NY: The Foundation Center; 2005
16.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.  Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2005. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2005
17.
 Biotechnology industry facts. Washington, DC: Biotechnology Industry Organization. Available at: http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp. Accessed June 16, 2005
18.
Lawyer P, Kirstein A, Yabuki A, Gjaja M, Kush D. High science: a best-practice formula for driving innovation. In Vivo Business Med Rep. 2004;22: 1-14. Available at: http://www.windhover.com/contents/monthly/exex/e_2004800080.htm. Accessed August 23, 2005
19.
US Food and Drug Administration.  Office of Device Evaluation. 2004 Annual Report. Rockville, Md: US Food and Drug Administration; 2004
20.
 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2004. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 2004
21.
 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2003. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 2003
22.
 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2002. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 2002
23.
 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2001. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 2001
24.
 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2000. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 2000
25.
 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 1999. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 1999
26.
 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 1998. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 1998
27.
 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 1996. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 1996
28.
 Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2002. Arlington, Va: National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Statistics; 2004. Publication No. NSF 04-330
29.
 Update on Foundation Health Policy GrantmakingNew York, NY: The Foundation Center; March 2004. Available at: http://fdncenter.org/research/trends_analysis/pdf/update_health_policy.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2005
30.
 Top 50 US Foundations Awarding Grants for Medical Research, circa 2003New York, NY: The Foundation Center; 2005. Available at: http://fdncenter.org/fc_stats/pdf/04_fund_sub/2003/50_found_sub/f_sub_h_03.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2005
31.
Lawler A, Mervis J. US science budget: science agencies caught in postelection spending squeeze.  Science. 2004;306:1662-166315576575Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Booth B, Zemmel R. Prospects for productivity.  Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:451-45615136792Google ScholarCrossref
33.
Moses H III, Thier SO, Matheson DH. Why have academic medical centers survived?  JAMA. 2005;293:1495-150015784874Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Jones RF, Sanderson SC. Clinical revenues used to support the academic mission of medical schools, 1992-93.  Acad Med. 1996;71:299-3078607934Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Weissman JS, Saglam D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Blumenthal D. Market forces and unsponsored research in academic health centers.  JAMA. 1999;281:1093-109810188659Google ScholarCrossref
36.
Cohen W, Nelson R, Walsh J. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manage Sci . 2002;48:1-23. Available at: http://www.extenza-eps.com/inf/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273. Accessed August 23, 2005
37.
 Biotech pharmaceuticals from seed to harvest. Economist; June 2, 2005. Available at: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4034111. Accessed June 16, 2005
38.
Okie S. What ails the FDA?  N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1063-106615784660Google ScholarCrossref
39.
Rosenberg RN. Translating biomedical research to the bedside: a national crisis and a call to action.  JAMA. 2003;289:1305-130612633194Google ScholarCrossref
40.
Lawrence S. Corporate R&D scorecard 2004. Technol Rev . 2004;(December):68-71. Available at: http://www.techreview.com/articles/04/12/scorecard1204.2.asp. Accessed August 23, 2005
41.
The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust.  Employer Health Benefits, 2004 Annual Survey. Menlo Park, Calif: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2004
42.
Institute of Medicine.  To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000
43.
Schuster MA, McGlynn EA, Brook RH. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76:517-563
44.
Kovner AR. Agenda setting for health care management research: report of a conference.  Health Care Manage Rev. 2003;28:319-32214682673Google ScholarCrossref
45.
Kumar A, Ozdamar L. International comparison of health care systems.  Intern J Computer Internet Manage2004;12:81-95Google Scholar
46.
Buxton M, Hanney S, Jones T. Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: a critical review.  Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:733-73915643793Google Scholar
47.
Owen-Smith J, Riccaboni M, Pammolli F, Powell W. A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences.  Manage Sci2002;48:24-43. Available at: http://www.extenza-eps.com/inf/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.24.14275. Accessed August 23, 2005Google Scholar
48.
Callahan D. What Price Better Health? Hazards of the Research ImperativeBerkeley: University of California Press; 2003
49.
Osterholm MT. Preparing for the next pandemic.  N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1839-184215872196Google ScholarCrossref
Original Contribution
September 21, 2005

Financial Anatomy of Biomedical Research

Author Affiliations
 

Author Affiliations: The Alerion Institute, North Garden, Va (Dr Moses); The Boston Consulting Group, Bethesda, Md (Dr Moses and Mr Matheson); Department of Medicine and Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston (Dr Thier); Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY (Dr Dorsey). Dr Dorsey performed most of his work while at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.

JAMA. 2005;294(11):1333-1342. doi:10.1001/jama.294.11.1333
Abstract

Context Public and private financial support of biomedical research have increased over the past decade. Few comprehensive analyses of the sources and uses of funds are available. This results in inadequate information on which to base investment decisions because not all sources allow equal latitude to explore hypotheses having scientific or clinical importance and creates a barrier to judging the value of research to society.

Objective To quantify funding trends from 1994 to 2004 of basic, translational, and clinical biomedical research by principal sponsors based in the United States.

Design Publicly available data were compiled for the federal, state, and local governments; foundations; charities; universities; and industry. Proprietary (by subscription but openly available) databases were used to supplement public sources.

Main Outcome Measures Total actual research spending, growth rates, and type of research with inflation adjustment.

Results Biomedical research funding increased from $37.1 billion in 1994 to $94.3 billion in 2003 and doubled when adjusted for inflation. Principal research sponsors in 2003 were industry (57%) and the National Institutes of Health (28%). Relative proportions from all public and private sources did not change. Industry sponsorship of clinical trials increased from $4.0 to $14.2 billion (in real terms) while federal proportions devoted to basic and applied research were unchanged. The United States spent an estimated 5.6% of its total health expenditures on biomedical research, more than any other country, but less than 0.1% for health services research. From an economic perspective, biotechnology and medical device companies were most productive, as measured by new diagnostic and therapeutic devices per dollar of research and development cost. Productivity declined for new pharmaceuticals.

Conclusions Enhancing research productivity and evaluation of benefit are pressing challenges, requiring (1) more effective translation of basic scientific knowledge to clinical application; (2) critical appraisal of rapidly moving scientific areas to guide investment where clinical need is greatest, not only where commercial opportunity is currently perceived; and (3) more specific information about sources and uses of research funds than is generally available to allow informed investment decisions. Responsibility falls on industry, government, and foundations to bring these changes about with a longer-term view of research value.

×