PORTAL generates evidence to advance safe, effective, and affordable medications.

PORTAL is one of the nation’s leading independent academic research groups addressing the development, regulation, evidence-based use, and cost of medical products.

PORTAL is an interdisciplinary team focused on generating evidence to make people healthier and live longer by improving how prescription drugs and other therapeutics are developed, regulated, used, and reimbursed. We deliver rigorous, timely research and engage with stakeholders to advance evidence-based policy solutions.

PORTAL is a research group in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics within the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

List Price Reductions Among Brand-Name ICS-LABA Inhalers In 2024 Were Associated With Increased Generic Uptake

Han J, Wang SV, Kesselheim AS, Avorn J, Feldman WB | Health Affairs

Following the American Rescue Plan Act’s removal of the Medicaid rebate cap in January 2024, brand-name ICS-LABA manufacturers reduced list prices by 21-50%, and generic ICS-LABA use immediately increased by 23%, driven by gains in commercial plans and Medicare. The authors conclude that these list price reductions likely limited brand-name manufacturers’ ability to offer large rebates to pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), disrupting financial incentives that had previously affected formulary design that suppressed generic uptake.

Read More

Subscribe to the PORTAL Post

Get the latest research and updates from PORTAL delivered straight to your inbox in our monthly newsletter.

New to Prescription Drug Policy?

Join the more than 100,000 people who have enrolled in our free, online HarvardX course, Prescription Drug Regulation, Cost, and Access: Current Controversies in Context. Led by PORTAL faculty, this course explores the major issues affecting the regulatory approval and evidence-based use of prescription drugs.

The Latest From PORTAL

Simple graphic of magnifying glass examining papers to signify reviewing research publications.

Orphan Designation for Drugs Approved in the United States and European Union: A Comparative Analysis

Costa E, Ross JS, Kesselheim AS - Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics

  • Innovation Incentives and Competition
  • Regulation and Clinical Evidence
The US Orphan Drug Act and EU Orphan Regulation both offer incentives to develop rare disease treatments, but of 344 rare disease drug indications approved from 2011 to 2020, 97.7% received FDA Orphan Drug designation versus only 40.4% from the EMA, with the agencies aligning most on advanced therapies and genetic diseases but diverging on cancer subsets and pediatric indications of common diseases like HIV. These differences reflect the broader US indication-based framework versus the EU’s narrower focus on distinct conditions, suggesting policymakers should target incentives toward truly rare diseases rather than subsets of common conditions like cancer.
View Source
An icon of a bill representing government policy.

Policy Brief: Eliminating Thickets to Increase Competition (ETHIC) Act

Martin MJ, Tu SS, Kesselheim AS - 119th Congress

  • Innovation Incentives and Competition
Brand-name drug manufacturers accumulate thickets of patents on their drugs that they then use to delay generic and biosimilar competition. Studies show many of these patents are obvious variations of earlier patents, granted only after applicants file “terminal disclaimers.” The ETHIC Act allows one patent per group of obvious variation patents to be asserted against generic or biosimilar competitors in litigation, while maintaining brand-name manufacturers’ ability to enforce any patents that fall outside these patent groups. The ETHIC Act substantially reduces the number of patents that could be enforced against generic or biosimilar competitors in litigation, making market entry of generics and biosimilars faster and more efficient, leading to greater health care savings and broader patient access.
View Source
Talk bubble graphics representing commentary and opinion.

Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Overvaluing Innovation, Undervaluing Health

Rand LZG, Paulden M, Raymakers AJN - Health Affairs Forefront

  • Price, Value, and Access
Standard cost-effectiveness thresholds used in the US and other high-income countries already exceed the marginal cost of a unit of health, building in an “innovation premium” that allows new drugs to be deemed cost-effective even when adopting them produces a net population health loss. Rather than abandoning thresholds, policymakers should fund research to identify the true opportunity-cost threshold, use it as a primary result in analyses, and acknowledge this premium for “newness” as a deliberate policy choice rather than a hidden default.
View Source