In the HEOR world, you hear a lot about innovation. However, how can we measure innovation? The easiest way is to count the number of new drugs. However, ten “me too” products may be considered less innovative than a single product that cures a disease.
An essay by Sukhun Kang in The Incidental Economist conducted a systematic literature of innovation metrics across medicine, public health, economics, strategy, finance, and operation. Using the n=617 articles relevant to the biopharmaceutical space, Kang created a six-dimensional rubric for measuring innovation.
Scientific and Technological Advances: Captures innovation and productivity using metrics such as NMEs, IND applications, and patents. Emerging indicators such as AI-enabled R&D and digital biomarkers offer forward-looking insights.Clinical Outcomes: Highlights therapeutic impact through metrics such as safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes, emphasizing real-world patient benefits and delays in disease progression.Operational Efficiency: Measures efficiency in development and production using trial success rates, R&D timelines, supply chain resilience, and adaptive trial designs.Economic and Societal Impact: Evaluates economic returns and societal benefits through cost-effectiveness analyses, budget impacts, and productivity improvements.Policy and Regulatory Effectiveness: Assesses how regulatory frameworks support innovation through approval speed, breakthrough designations, and surrogate endpoint integration.Public Health and Accessibility: Examines broader health impacts, including reduced disease incidence, healthcare access improvements, and equitable geographic distribution, ensuring innovations meet widespread public health needs.
The article also maps these rubrics based on their relevance to five key stakeholders: companies, investors, payers, policymakers and patients. You can read the full article here.
