I totally agree. Although I'm not sure similar vouchers for antibiotics would be sufficient for the same success, as there are also logistical, financial and scientific advantages that have enabled rare disease drug development. Many rare disease being targeted are monogenic, providing a very 'clean' scientific mechanism, and higher success rates. The clinical studies can be small well defined population as pre/neonatal genetic testing is now routine, and supportive Foundations are often instrumental. Financially, insurers/payers have been amenable to huge per-patient prices in rare diseases because of low volume and often impressive efficacy.
Developing antibiotics has lower technical success rates. The medical need is more acute and distributed across more broad populations with much of them poor making patients 'harder to find'. Any novel antibiotic are typicaly held in reserve until after generation of resistance to all the current drugs, limiting volume. Commonly, physician and patient over-/mis-usage of antibiotics generates resistance, generating a limited 'valuable' life span of the drug.
There are many governmental/regulatory incentives being developed, and at least one industry-backed fund (AMR action fund) supporting early research but it’s still a challenge to build business plans for this.
Developing antibiotics has lower technical success rates. The medical need is more acute and distributed across more broad populations with much of them poor making patients 'harder to find'. Any novel antibiotic are typicaly held in reserve until after generation of resistance to all the current drugs, limiting volume. Commonly, physician and patient over-/mis-usage of antibiotics generates resistance, generating a limited 'valuable' life span of the drug.
There are many governmental/regulatory incentives being developed, and at least one industry-backed fund (AMR action fund) supporting early research but it’s still a challenge to build business plans for this.