1
people have died from curable diseases
since this page started loading...
💀

Health Dividend

Keywords

war-on-disease, 1-percent-treaty, medical-research, public-health, peace-dividend, decentralized-trials, dfda, dih, victory-bonds, health-economics, cost-benefit-analysis, clinical-trials, drug-development, regulatory-reform, military-spending, peace-economics, decentralized-governance, wishocracy, blockchain-governance, impact-investing

Your decentralized framework for drug assessment (dFDA) costs $40M (95% CI: $27.3M-$55.6M)/year to run. It saves $58.6B (95% CI: $49.2B-$73.1B)/year in clinical trial waste. That’s 84.8M:1 (95% CI: 46.6M:1-144M:1) returns (recommended estimate including post-safety efficacy lag elimination).

Conservative estimate: 637:1 (95% CI: 569:1-790:1) (R&D savings only)

Here’s the breakdown.

The Math: From $41K (95% CI: $20K-$120K) to $500 (95% CI: $400-$2.50K) Per Patient

Traditional Phase III trials cost $41K (95% CI: $20K-$120K) per patient. That’s more than a Tesla per person to find out if a pill works. The pill costs 37 cents to make. The paperwork weighs more than the patient.

A comparison showing the dramatic cost reduction from traditional Phase III clinical trials at 41,000 per patient to the Oxford RECOVERY trial model at 500 per patient.

A comparison showing the dramatic cost reduction from traditional Phase III clinical trials at 41,000 per patient to the Oxford RECOVERY trial model at 500 per patient.

The Oxford RECOVERY trial proved humans can do the same thing for $500 (95% CI: $400-$2.50K) per patient. They tested COVID treatments on 40,000+ patients by:

  • Using existing hospital staff (revolutionary concept: doctors treating patients)
  • Collecting data electronically (instead of sacrificing forests to the paperwork gods)
  • Focusing on what actually matters: does the patient live or die? (not “did they complete form 27-B in triplicate?”)

Your decentralized framework for drug assessment takes this model global. 80-160x cost reduction. Same quality data. Better real-world applicability. Turns out you don’t need 17 committees to ask “did the medicine work?”

Where the $58.6B (95% CI: $49.2B-$73.1B) Comes From

Global clinical trial spending: $60B (95% CI: $50B-$75B) per year (and growing).

A comparison of current global clinical trial spending against potential annual savings under conservative (50 percent efficiency) and optimistic (95 percent cost reduction) scenarios.

A comparison of current global clinical trial spending against potential annual savings under conservative (50 percent efficiency) and optimistic (95 percent cost reduction) scenarios.

Conservative estimate: A decentralized framework for drug assessment captures 50% efficiency gains across the market.

Optimistic scenarios show up to 95% cost reduction (like RECOVERY achieved), potentially saving up to $57B annually (95% of $60B (95% CI: $50B-$75B)).

What $58.6B (95% CI: $49.2B-$73.1B) Buys You

An infographic illustrating how a 58.6 billion budget could be redistributed to fund 10,000 clinical trials, treat 7,000 rare diseases, and drastically reduce drug development time and costs.

An infographic illustrating how a 58.6 billion budget could be redistributed to fund 10,000 clinical trials, treat 7,000 rare diseases, and drastically reduce drug development time and costs.

With the money saved every year, humans could:

  • Fund 10,000 new pragmatic clinical trials (at $5M each using efficient methods)
  • Test treatments for 7,000 rare diseases currently ignored (because orphan diseases aren’t profitable enough for your orphan-making economic system)
  • Cut drug development time from 17 years to 3-5 years (most terminal patients don’t have 17 years, which seems like a design flaw)
  • Make medicines affordable by eliminating $2.60B (95% CI: $1.50B-$4B) development costs (this is mostly lawyers arguing about commas)

Daily Opportunity Cost

Every day we don’t implement this represents a massive societal cost: $161M (95% CI: $135M-$200M) in wasted trial inefficiency and 7.94B DALYs (95% CI: 4.43B DALYs-12.1B DALYs) total lost to delayed treatments (7.94B DALYs (95% CI: 4.43B DALYs-12.1B DALYs) ÷ 62 years = ~54.75M DALYs annually).

A visualization of the daily opportunity cost of inaction, highlighting the dual impact of 161 million in financial waste and over 54 million DALYs lost annually.

A visualization of the daily opportunity cost of inaction, highlighting the dual impact of 161 million in financial waste and over 54 million DALYs lost annually.

For detailed calculations and sensitivity analysis, see Daily Opportunity Cost of Inaction.

The framework Cost Breakdown

Your decentralized framework for drug assessment costs approximately $40M (95% CI: $27.3M-$55.6M) annually to operate at scale, with a similar one-time build cost. This includes cloud infrastructure, a lean engineering team, compliance, and global integration.

A cost breakdown chart visualizing the 40M annual operating budget across infrastructure, engineering, and compliance, highlighting the 95 percent confidence interval range from 27.3M to 55.6M.

A cost breakdown chart visualizing the 40M annual operating budget across infrastructure, engineering, and compliance, highlighting the 95 percent confidence interval range from 27.3M to 55.6M.

For detailed cost analysis including ROM estimates, market comparables, and sensitivity scenarios, see dFDA Cost-Benefit Analysis.

ROI Scenarios

Recommended: 84.8M:1 (95% CI: 46.6M:1-144M:1) ROI including post-safety efficacy lag elimination (most defensible using rigorous DALY-based methodology)

Conservative: 637:1 (95% CI: 569:1-790:1) ROI (R&D savings only, NPV-adjusted over 10 years)

PRIMARY estimate: 84.8M:1 (95% CI: 46.6M:1-144M:1) ROI (including all core benefits)

Even in worst-case scenarios (higher costs, lower adoption), the ROI remains exceptional at 66:1.

A comparison of ROI scenarios illustrating the exponential scale difference between conservative R and D savings and the primary estimate including societal benefits.

A comparison of ROI scenarios illustrating the exponential scale difference between conservative R and D savings and the primary estimate including societal benefits.

For interactive charts, sensitivity analysis, and detailed NPV calculations, see Financial Analysis Summary.

Why This Isn’t Happening Already

Simple: The people getting rich from the current system aren’t the ones paying for it.

  • CROs make billions from inefficiency
  • Regulators protect their bureaucratic empires
  • Pharma passes costs to patients anyway
  • Patients have no power to change the system they’re dying in

Until now. Your decentralized framework for drug assessment changes the game by aligning incentives: everyone profits from efficiency.

Map of the current misaligned incentives preventing system efficiency.

Map of the current misaligned incentives preventing system efficiency.

The ROI

$40M (95% CI: $27.3M-$55.6M) to save $58.6B (95% CI: $49.2B-$73.1B). 84.8M:1 (95% CI: 46.6M:1-144M:1) ROI (recommended). 80x cost reduction per patient. 12.3x (95% CI: 4.19x-61.3x) more trial capacity (43.4M participants annually vs 1.9M currently).

A comparative infographic showing the massive disparity between the 40M investment and 58.6B in potential savings, alongside the dramatic expansion in clinical trial capacity.

A comparative infographic showing the massive disparity between the 40M investment and 58.6B in potential savings, alongside the dramatic expansion in clinical trial capacity.

This isn’t a moonshot. The RECOVERY trial already proved it works. The only thing left to do is scale it globally. But humans are still debating whether saving $58.6B (95% CI: $49.2B-$73.1B) is worth $40M (95% CI: $27.3M-$55.6M), which is like debating whether picking up a hundred-dollar bill is worth bending over.

Every day you wait costs $161M (95% CI: $135M-$200M) in R&D inefficiency and delays treatment for millions. But at least the paperwork is properly filed.

Further Reading

Detailed Analysis

Impact of Innovative Medicines on Life Expectancy

A three-way fixed-effects analysis of 66 diseases in 27 countries suggests that if no new drugs had been launched after 1981, the number of years of life lost would have been 2.16 times higher than it actually was. It estimates that pharmaceutical expenditure per life-year saved was $2837.

More people survive as more treatments are developed. There’s a strong correlation between the development of new cancer treatments and cancer survival over 30 years.

Graph showing the correlation of developing new cancer treatments and cancer survival over 30 years.

Graph showing the correlation of developing new cancer treatments and cancer survival over 30 years.

Key Sources