Skip to main content
EbiCap
Sign in
Live Accountability Workflows

Three Workflows. One Spine.

The same pharmaceutical company can look responsible to a financial terminal, irrelevant to a policymaker, and like a front-page story to a journalist. EbiCap unifies the evidence layer.

01ESG & Investment

Governance signals missed by traditional terminals.

CEO bonus triggers vs patient outcomes
02Health Policy

Finding the $500B disease nobody is treating.

Mapping disease burden to commercial R&D
03Accountability

Approved in the US. Rejected in Europe.

Linking HTA rejections to shareholder payouts
ESG & Responsible InvestmentPortfolio Triage Workflow

The Governance Signal That Wasn't in Financial Terminals

A mid-cap European biopharma had a clean bill of health from standard ESG vendors. EbiCap flagged a structural incentive misalignment eighteen months before its flagship drug was rejected.

The Problem

A €220B pension fund held a stake in a mid-cap European biopharma. Standard financial screening gave it a “B” rating — low carbon intensity, diverse board, no settlement history. Everything looked fine.

What the standard screening missed: the CEO's long-term bonus was tied to how much the drug sold, not whether patients improved. Under EbiCap's classification, that is a Value-Capture pay structure — a signal that executive incentives are misaligned with therapeutic outcomes.

Incentive Misalignment FlagMid-Cap Cluster · Cardiovascular · Bottom Quintile

European Cardiovascular Portfolio

TIS Score (0–100)
34 / 100
HTA Drug Benefit
1.1 / 4
Peer Alignment
−3.2 pts
High-Extract Pay
Since 2020
34
/ 100
Pillar Average

EbiCap · Therapeutic Impact Score (0–100) · Signal as flagged by platform

Workflow Steps

How the analyst moved from a high-level portfolio screen to a specific governance engagement.

1

Screen the Leaderboard

Sorted by cardiovascular cluster. The company appeared in the bottom quintile with a TIS of 34/100. Three of five executive pay triggers were revenue-linked with no patient outcome requirement.

2

Check HTA Evidence

The HTA tab showed lead drug rejection from major national health payers — rated as providing no meaningful improvement. EbiCap unified these into a 1.1/4 score.

3

Verify Extraction Risk

Cross-referenced shareholder payouts against R&D. The company was returning more capital to shareholders via buybacks than it was investing in primary research.

Standard Vendor Output

  • ESG rating: B (Stable)
  • Low carbon intensity metrics
  • Board diversity: 40% female
  • No regulatory settlements

EbiCap Evidence layer

  • TI Score: 34/100 (Bottom quartile)
  • CEO bonus triggered by revenue, not health outcome
  • National HTA rating: 1.1/4 (No improvement)
  • Buybacks exceed R&D investment since FY2021
T − 18mo
TIS Flagged 34
Value-capture triggers identified
T − 14mo
Engagement Filed
Shareholder letter sent to board
T − 4mo
Stake Reduced
60% position exit
T = 0
Payer Rejection
Official 'no benefit' rating
T + 5d
Equity −18%
Post-rejection market drop

The Takeaway

The fund exited 60% of its position four months before the final regulatory rejection. The company had no prepared response to the engagement letter because no other shareholder had asked about drug-benefit thresholds.

The pension fund avoided an estimated €14M in downside risk by moving from standard ratings to EbiCap evidence.

Global Health & ReimbursementPolicy Evidence Workflow

Mapping the Unseen Disease Gaps

A health ministry team needed to identify which diseases carry the heaviest burden but receive zero commercial investment.

847
Conditions Mapped
ICD-10 aligned
Extreme
Neglect Score
Top 20 categories
$312B
Welfare Value
VL cure potential
140M
Total DALYs
Underserved pop.

The Problem

Preparing a brief for a proposed €800M neglected-disease fund requires precision. The team needed to prove where commercial pharmaceutical pipelines are non-existent relative to human burden.

Disease Burden vs. Active Phase 3 Research Trials

Bar = annual disability-adjusted life years lost (DALYs — years of healthy life lost to illness or premature death). Dots = active clinical trials testing treatments for that condition worldwide.

Visceral LeishmaniasisNo active trials
2.1M DALYs/yr
Neonatal Encephalopathy2 active trials
8.7M DALYs/yr
Maternal Haemorrhage1 active trial
5.3M DALYs/yr
Chagas DiseaseNo active trials
1.8M DALYs/yr
Lower Respiratory (low-income countries)4 active trials
76.0M DALYs/yr
Annual burden (DALYs)
Active Phase 3 Trial

Source: Global Burden of Disease Registries · Clinical Trial Registries · EbiCap Model.

Data Synthesis

The ministry cross-referenced EbiCap's Neglect Index (Burden ÷ Active Trials) against its Economic Welfare model. The output was a ranked list of conditions where commercial market failure is verifiable.

Visceral Leishmaniasis: 2.1M DALYs · 0 commercial Phase 3 trials
Neonatal Encephalopathy: 8.7M DALYs · 2 active trials
Maternal Haemorrhage: 5.3M DALYs · 1 trial in portfolio

The Takeaway

The ministry brief used EbiCap to justify an Advance Market Commitment fund. By proving the commercial pipeline for high-burden conditions was zero, they convinced parliament that direct R&D pull-incentives were required.

Investigative AccountabilityCross-Signal Narrative

Approved in One Market. Rejected in Another.

When a pharmaceutical breakthrough is announced, the market looks at sales. EbiCap allows journalists to look at the underlying evidence layer across five domains.

Evidence DivergenceNeurology Therapeutic Area · Bottom Quintile

CNS Cluster — High Extra-Value Flag

TIS Score
31 / 100
HTA Consensus
1.5 / 4
Settlements
$680M
Physician Pay
$22M/yr
31
/ 100
Pillar Average

EbiCap · Therapeutic Impact Score (0–100) · Signal as flagged by platform

The Problem

A health correspondent was covering the approval of a high-cost neurological drug. EbiCap allowed her to cross-link HTA benefit rejections with CEO pay triggers in one afternoon.

Findings Linkage

HTA Evidence

Rejected by three major European regulators for 'no proven benefit' over existing standards.

Executive Pay

CEO's bonus was tied specifically to revenue from this launch, with no clinical endpoint requirement.

Prior Conduct

$680M in previous settlements for off-label promotion and marketing violations.

Physician Influence

$22M in payments to specialists in the same year, including lead trial investigators.

The Takeaway

The resulting investigation ran with the headline: "The Drug With No Proven Benefit."It synthesised twelve public sources to prove that executive incentives had diverged from patient outcomes.

Built for impact capital

The evidence exists.
We've already linked it.

View LeaderboardOur Methodology

Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · SEC EDGAR · NICE (UK) · G-BA/IQWiG (Germany) · HAS (France) · FDA Orange Book · WHO Global Burden · DOJ · NIH iCite · SEC 13-F · ICMA · CMS