↓ Skip to main content

The Commercial Market For Priority Review Vouchers

Overview of attention for article published in Health Affairs, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
41 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Commercial Market For Priority Review Vouchers
Published in
Health Affairs, May 2016
DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1314
Pubmed ID
Authors

David B. Ridley, Stephane A. Régnier

Abstract

In 2007 the US Congress created the priority review voucher program to encourage the development of drugs for neglected diseases. Under the program, the developer of a drug that treats a neglected disease receives both a faster review of the drug by the Food and Drug Administration and a voucher for a faster review of a different drug. The developer can sell the voucher. We estimated the commercial value of the voucher using US sales of new treatments approved in the period 2007-09. A third of the commercial value of a voucher comes from capturing market share from competitors, nearly half from the value of earlier sales because of the expedited review, and less than a quarter from lengthening the time between approval and the launch of a generic competitor. We estimate that if only one priority review voucher is available in a year, it will be worth more than $200 million, but if four vouchers are available, the value could fall below $100 million. Congress should be cautious about expanding the voucher program, because increasing the number of vouchers sharply decreases the expected price. Lower voucher prices could undermine the incentive to develop new medicines for neglected diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Other 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 12 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#398,081
of 20,285,536 outputs
Outputs from Health Affairs
#1,080
of 6,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,003
of 276,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Affairs
#33
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,285,536 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 62.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.