This special JLME symposium addresses ways that federal policy can incentivize innovation in medical therapeutics and make pharmaceuticals more financially accessible.

The US government supports drug innovation. It is therefore crucial that it distinguish between high-value and low-value innovation in purchasing expensive prescription drugs and medical devices and ensure the continued discovery of transformative drugs and that patient and taxpayer funds are not wasted.

This article discusses the misalignment of the drug innovation model in the US with broader societal goals. The paper calls for a reconfiguration of this model to prioritize the common good and ensure equitable access to health innovations. The article stresses the importance of adopting a mission-oriented approach to shape the drug market, including reforming intellectual property rights.

Kesselheim proposes doubling the NIH’s budget to promote clinically meaningful pharmaceutical innovation. Since the effects of a previous doubling (from 1998-2003) were mixed, I argue that policymakers should couple future budget growth with investments in experimentation and evaluation.

Government encouragement of free markets is a highly effective means of fostering pharmaceutical innovation; the NIH, by including “free-market provisions” in its licensing agreements that discourage anti-competitive and research-impeding behavior, can do a great deal to support this goal even without legislative overhaul.

In January 2023, Moderna announced its intent to increase the price of the COVID-19 vaccine it co-developed with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by 400%. The federal government should pressure Moderna to change course and resume buying doses for all Americans, leveraging its purchasing power to obtain a fair price.

This commentary highlights the scientific history of the NIH-Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and corroborates Sarpatwari’s theme of private capture of value created by the public. The commentary also identifies missteps by the Trump and Biden Administrations and offers policy recommendations: better contracts with and incentives for pharmaceutical manufacturers and a not-for-profit “public option” for pharmaceutical development.

The NIH-Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine’s steep price increase raises concerns that this will be the new anchor for continued price hikes and underscores the need for upstream government intervention to enable greater accountability and stewardship of public biomedical research investment.

Recently, Congress has focused on reforms to address pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs) role in high drug prices for patients. Congress must not excessively restrict PBMs’ ability to negotiate with manufacturers; alternatively, reforms could be paired with other policies that address the high prices of brand-name drugs.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM) induce drug manufacturers to offer rebates to insurers and employers by denying coverage through formulary exclusions, impeding physician prescription through prior authorization, and reducing patient drug use through cost sharing. As they tighten these access obstacles, PBMs reduce the net prices received by the manufacturers.

A lack of transparency and concerns over patients costs at the pharmacy counter have increased Congressional focus on pharmacy benefits management practices. However, applying regulations without transparency into pharmacy benefits managers practices could do more harm than good.