Alternative innovation models for medicines in the public interest: a typology, evidence and comparison with the mainstream model

Introduction Discontent with the mainstream commercial pharmaceutical innovation system’s shortcomings (eg, missing innovation, high prices, limited availability) has catalysed experimentation with alternative innovation models (AIMs). However, the study of AIMs is conceptually and empirically fragmented, with open questions regarding definitions, therapeutic focus, functioning, achievements and comparison with the mainstream. Methods We defined AIMs as having a public interest mission and differing from the mainstream model, for instance, in organisational form, financing, priority setting, role in research and development phases, knowledge management, and regulatory, manufacturing or pricing strategy. We constructed a database of 138 initiatives, conducted interviews with 47 and carried out case studies of three. We iteratively developed novel conceptual frameworks at the system, model and initiative levels and used framework analysis to analyse the data. Results We found ample evidence that AIMs can develop new medicines addressing unmet health needs. AIMs cluster in four ‘niches’ in the innovation system: pandemic preparedness, neglected tropical diseases, rare diseases and antibiotics. AIM initiatives have in common a public interest mission but vary widely in their organisational form and strategies. Nevertheless, we discerned three archetypal AIMs: national government driven, socially redirected private sector and collaborative network, each able to deliver innovation but with different strengths and weaknesses for meeting the public interest. Conclusions AIMs have demonstrated their feasibility, advantages and potential to challenge the mainstream model but remain small scale and relatively fragile. Institutionalising them requires stable expanded public and philanthropic financing; enhanced sharing of scientific, regulatory and manufacturing knowledge; and legal and policy changes that secure the resources they need to deliver.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMJ Innovations
Published
2026-06-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2025-001491
Primary Topic
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Alternative innovation models for medicines in the public interest: a typology, evidence and comparison with the mainstream model

Suerie Moon, Kaitlin Elizabeth Large, Adrián Alonso Ruiz, Iulia Slovenski et al.
BMJ Innovations
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
article

Alternative innovation models for medicines in the public interest: a typology, evidence and comparison with the mainstream model

Suerie Moon, Kaitlin Elizabeth Large, Adrián Alonso Ruiz, Iulia Slovenski, Marcela Vieira
article en

Abstract

Introduction Discontent with the mainstream commercial pharmaceutical innovation system’s shortcomings (eg, missing innovation, high prices, limited availability) has catalysed experimentation with alternative innovation models (AIMs). However, the study of AIMs is conceptually and empirically fragmented, with open questions regarding definitions, therapeutic focus, functioning, achievements and comparison with the mainstream. Methods We defined AIMs as having a public interest mission and differing from the mainstream model, for instance, in organisational form, financing, priority setting, role in research and development phases, knowledge management, and regulatory, manufacturing or pricing strategy. We constructed a database of 138 initiatives, conducted interviews with 47 and carried out case studies of three. We iteratively developed novel conceptual frameworks at the system, model and initiative levels and used framework analysis to analyse the data. Results We found ample evidence that AIMs can develop new medicines addressing unmet health needs. AIMs cluster in four ‘niches’ in the innovation system: pandemic preparedness, neglected tropical diseases, rare diseases and antibiotics. AIM initiatives have in common a public interest mission but vary widely in their organisational form and strategies. Nevertheless, we discerned three archetypal AIMs: national government driven, socially redirected private sector and collaborative network, each able to deliver innovation but with different strengths and weaknesses for meeting the public interest. Conclusions AIMs have demonstrated their feasibility, advantages and potential to challenge the mainstream model but remain small scale and relatively fragile. Institutionalising them requires stable expanded public and philanthropic financing; enhanced sharing of scientific, regulatory and manufacturing knowledge; and legal and policy changes that secure the resources they need to deliver.

BMJ Innovations
Global Health Centre (CH), Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (CH)
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.