Richard Frank’s response to commentary on government support of innovation

It is disappointing when scholars from reputable academic institutions enter a fact-free zone to make policy arguments. Sadly, this is exactly the line of argument that Gowda and Miller have recently pursued. They accuse the Biden-Harris administration of having “both stifled innovation and made it harder for drugs to reach patients.” I believe that it is worth looking beyond the tired pharma talking points and made-up simulation numbers to what is happening on the ground. 

Let’s begin with direct investments in research and development. From 2021 through 2023, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget increased 13.9%. That compares well to the three pre-pandemic years that saw a 14.5% rise. In addition, the Biden-Harris administration oversaw the creation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) that began with a $1 billion investment that has increased to $2.5 billion in 2024. The National Science Foundation budget has grown 15.2% under the Biden-Harris administration. That compares to 10.8% in the prior administration.

Gowda and Miller next rail against the new approach to establishing negotiated prices for a limited set of single source drugs that have been exclusively on the market for at least nine to 13 years. They refer to Medicare drug “administered” prices. To the extent that they actually mean the limited number of drugs that will have negotiated prices, it seems that the real objection is that the authors have a preference for prices administered by monopolists that have evaded competition to prices administered through a negotiation process. 

Examining the facts on the ground offers a different view of the industry and research and development policy than those asserted by Gowda and Miller based on ideology in the absence of facts.

Read the full op-ed here