Diverging Bets: How Pharma Research Strategies Are Splitting
Aggregate research spend grew only modestly — but individual manufacturers are moving in sharply different directions, from a 55% decline to a 235% surge.
Diverging Bets: How Pharma Research Strategies Are Splitting
Aggregate research spend grew only modestly, but individual manufacturers are moving in sharply different directions — a signal that localizes where new programs are expanding or contracting.
In This Analysis
Up, Down, and Steady
Moderna's research spend fell 55% ($741M to $334M) as COVID-era programs wound down. Amgen's rose 235% ($174M to $585M). Eli Lilly leads three-year spend at $2.04 billion, ahead of Pfizer, Novartis, and Moderna. Same category, very different trajectories.
The Research Analog to Separating Royalties
In General Payments, the key move is separating royalties from promotion. In research, the analog is splitting each manufacturer's spend by recipient type — institution versus teaching hospital versus individual — and by preclinical share. That split reveals whether a manufacturer's growth is institutional trial funding or something that warrants a closer look.
Just as royalties must be separated from promotional spend in General Payments, recipient-type and preclinical-share splits are the equivalent lens for research payments.
Why Divergence Matters
Rapid expansion can outpace controls; rapid contraction can strand oversight. Both are reasons to review program-level activity. A manufacturer growing its research footprint 235% in two years is simply a natural place to confirm that new-program controls kept pace.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Recipient-type split | Breaking a manufacturer's spend into institution / teaching hospital / individual. |
| Preclinical share | The fraction of a manufacturer's research spend that is preclinical. |
| Program-level review | Examining the specific studies and awards behind a spend trend. |