Let me start today with a proposition.
The regulatory pathway you choose is increasingly an investment decision.
And I don't think life sciences leadership always fully appreciates the implications.
We routinely calculate development costs, probability of technical success, peak sales, operating margins, and discounted cash flows.
Yet the regulatory HTA and market access environment surrounding an asset is sometimes treated almost as a constant.
It isn't.
And increasingly, that assumption can materially distort ROI.
Because two medicines targeting exactly the same disease can have dramatically different investment cases.
One may be a small molecule, another a biologic.
One may have a six-month dosing interval.
Another requires an infusion every three weeks.
One may enter an established treatment paradigm.
Another requires new diagnostics, new infrastructure, and physician education.
One may qualify for an expedited regulatory pathway.
Another may not.
One may face three established competitors by launch.
Another may be first in class.
And one may have an evidence package beautifully aligned with regulators, but poorly aligned with HTA.
Same disease, completely different economics.
That is why industry standard benchmarks telling us that bringing a medicine to approval costs X billion dollars are useful academically, but dangerously coarse for strategic portfolio planning.
What matters isn't the average cost of developing a drug.
What matters is the probability-adjusted, time-adjusted return on this particular asset under this particular development regulatory, access and geographic strategy.
And today that equation is changing.
Let me start today with a proposition.
The regulatory pathway you choose is increasingly an investment decision.
And I don't think life sciences leadership always fully appreciates the implications.
We routinely calculate development costs, probability of technical success, peak sales, operating margins, and discounted cash flows.
Yet the regulatory HTA and market access environment surrounding an asset is sometimes treated almost as a constant.
It isn't.
And increasingly, that assumption can materially distort ROI.
Because two medicines targeting exactly the same disease can have dramatically different investment cases.
One may be a small molecule, another a biologic.
One may have a six-month dosing interval.
Another requires an infusion every three weeks.
One may enter an established treatment paradigm.
Another requires new diagnostics, new infrastructure, and physician education.
One may qualify for an expedited regulatory pathway.
Another may not.
One may face three established competitors by launch.
Another may be first in class.
And one may have an evidence package beautifully aligned with regulators, but poorly aligned with HTA.
Same disease, completely different economics.
That is why industry standard benchmarks telling us that bringing a medicine to approval costs X billion dollars are useful academically, but dangerously coarse for strategic portfolio planning.
What matters isn't the average cost of developing a drug.
What matters is the probability-adjusted, time-adjusted return on this particular asset under this particular development regulatory, access and geographic strategy.
And today that equation is changing.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.