Study finds inconsistent methods can distort funding decisions.

Asia-Pacific governments face growing pressure to show that public spending on medical research delivers measurable returns, but inconsistent methods for valuing research may lead to poor funding decisions.

A peer-reviewed 2026 study published in Value in Health, the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, found that return-on-investment (ROI) estimates could vary by orders of magnitude depending on whether researchers measure only fiscal savings or also assign a monetary value to improved health outcomes.

The lack of standardised guidelines for calculating ROI could result in resources being directed toward less effective interventions, according to the study.

Researchers proposed an initial ROI threshold for healthcare interventions and warned that existing methods could also affect fairness in funding decisions.

A separate March 2026 analysis by Nous Group for the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes estimated Australia’s medical research institutes generate $2.8b (AUD4.07b) in annual economic benefits, equivalent to a return of $3.90 for every dollar invested.

The report found clinical trials produced even higher returns of about $4 (AUD5.80) for every dollar spent, whilst giving patients earlier access to treatments.

The Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes also said government funding typically pays for research projects but only partly covers laboratories, data systems, specialised staff, and equipment that support them, creating funding gaps that could weaken research capacity over time.

Questions to ponder

• Should governments adopt a standard method for measuring the return on medical research investment?
• How can policymakers balance efficiency with fairness when allocating medical research funding?
• Should clinical trials receive greater public funding given their reported economic and patient benefits?