How the US made orphan drugs a market
From Congressional hearings and interviews, Mikami shows the 1983 Orphan Drug Act’s market incentives were a contingent American choice, not the only way to supply rare-disease drugs.
Source
Orphans in the Market: The History of Orphan Drug Policy
Study at a glance
- Design
- Qualitative / archival — Congressional/regulatory archives plus participant interviews on the Orphan Drug Act’s origins
- N
- Policy history from 1962 reforms through 1983 Act and later amendments; interview count not primary in stored text
- Population
- US (and comparative UK) orphan-drug policy actors and rare-disease drug regulation
- Outcome
- Market exclusivity/tax credits as a contingent American choice versus alternative supply paths
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
How the US made orphan drugs a market
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
Only 10 drugs for rare diseases were FDA-approved in the decade before 1983; more than 350 by 2010.
Whereas only 10 drugs for such diseases had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the decade before 1983, by 2010, the agency had approved more than 350.
The 1984 Amendments set the rare-disease threshold at 200,000 patients.
The figure of 200,000 was duly adopted as the legal definition of a rare disease in the 1984 Amendments to the Orphan Drug Act.
What they did
The author read Congressional hearings, FDA and UK regulatory records, and secondary literature, and interviewed participants, to follow the word “orphan” from the 1962 Kefauver–Harris reforms through the 1983 Act, the 1984–85 amendments, and 1990s fights over “billion-dollar orphans.”
What they found
Market exclusivity and tax credits were not inevitable: Britain’s Medicines Act path (named-patient supply, state product licences) offered an alternative. Patient visibility, generic-industry politics, and FDA insistence on unchanged safety standards locked in a market-based US model that later produced high-priced “true orphans.”
The limits
What it doesn't show
It does not measure today’s orphan-drug prices or prove how many 350 post-1983 approvals would have appeared without the Act; interviews cover participants, not patients living with current access barriers.
Key terms
- Orphan Drug Act 1983
- US law granting tax credits and seven-year market exclusivity to stimulate drugs for rare diseases.
- Kefauver–Harris Amendments 1962
- Post-thalidomide US rules that raised the cost of proving safety and efficacy before marketing.
- Rare disease (1984)
- US statutory threshold of a condition affecting fewer than 200,000 people, adopted in 1984.
- Service drugs
- Unprofitable medicines firms once supplied as a public-service loss-leader before 1960s regulation.
- Billion-dollar orphans
- 1990s label for designated orphan products that became highly profitable under exclusivity.
Flashcards
0 of 10 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
Who first applied “orphan” to drugs in this account?
Common questions
When was the Orphan Drug Act signed?
January 1983, by President Reagan.
Who first called drugs “orphans”?
Harry C. Shirkey, speaking about paediatric “pharmaceutical orphans” after 1962.
What prevalence defined a rare disease in 1984?
Fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States.
How did the UK treat Wilson’s-disease trien?
DHSS took a Clinical Trials Certificate and worked with a manufacturer rather than passing an orphan statute.
More on Public health