The main difference for innovators lies in the source of profit, which will come from remuneration rights fund rather than from the healthcare buyers. While profit will remain the same, the type of medicines produce may however shift. Since profit is tied to health impact under the remuneration right, the nature of products developed to maximise profit is expected to be redirected towards maximising health benefits as well, while profit will remain identical.
Innovators file for remuneration rights instead of patents and are paid annually from the fund. As producers of information, innovators would file for a remuneration right. They would then be entitled to a share of the remuneration rights funding pool for a fixed period of time. Payments would be made annually. The payments to the rights holder would be proportional to the usage and health benefits of the treatment. As consumers of information, innovators would also have unrestricted access to research and information on all innovations registered with the remuneration rights office. This would reduce duplication and accelerate cumulative research.
Investors get returns from R&D that delivers health impact. In parallel, investors’ returns will shift towards R&D which produces the most health benefits and continue to receive returns on investments in pharmaceutical R&D. The only difference is that the most successful investments would be in the innovations which produce the most health benefit, rather than in the innovations which sell best.
Pharmaceutical shareholders continue to receive profits, gain increased certainty, and reduce reputational risk. In consequence of the above, pharmaceutical companies would remain profitable businesses, but their profits would be tied to health impact rather than to pure sales. Shareholders would still receive these profits. Furthermore, the structure of the remuneration rights fund would deliver greater certainty to investors about the long-term revenues available to the industry.
