How We Build the Therapeutic Impact Score
How We Build the Therapeutic Impact Score
Primary data from global health and regulatory bodies, routed through five analytical pillars, peer-adjusted by therapeutic cluster — producing a single, comparable Therapeutic Impact Score for every covered company.
Methodology
EbiCap — Methodology & Framework
One question drives EbiCap: do pharmaceutical companies generate clinical value for society proportional to the financial capital they extract from it? We automate the answer — producing the Therapeutic Impact Score (TIS), a subjective-free ranking of 633 publicly listed pharmaceutical companies.
Mission
Make the relationship between pharmaceutical R&D investment, clinical benefit, and public health outcomes legible, measurable, and comparable across every major company.
Approach
Automated, reproducible pipelines built on globally recognised public health and regulatory data — rebuilt continuously, with full audit trails from source to score.
Independence
No pharma industry funding. No proprietary data access. Every number in the platform can be traced to a primary public source, ensuring complete objectivity.
Why We Exist
Most drugs approved today represent Low-Value Incrementalism — marginal improvements within already-treated conditions, priced as if they were breakthroughs. EbiCap makes that gap visible at company level, at scale.
Why We Exist
The Incrementalism Problem
The Therapeutic Impact Score — Five Pillars
Clinical Benefit & Access
Health Technology Assessment (HTA) ratings from major international regulators mapped onto a standardised benefit ladder. The primary signal: what benefit do patients actually receive relative to existing treatments, and is that benefit accessible at a proportionate price?
Pipeline Quality & Innovation
Pipeline quality — not size. Companies targeting genuine unmet needs with regulatory designations evidencing meaningful improvement score higher than expansive pipelines of incremental or copycat compounds. Includes a trial-transparency sub-score for publication rate, active comparator usage, and demographic representation (Sex, Race, Age).
Capital Stewardship
How companies deploy the capital they generate — measuring the balance between research reinvestment and shareholder extraction (buybacks + dividends). Executive compensation structures are classified using the Value-Centric Stewardship (VCS) taxonomy.
Disease Burden Alignment
Strategic alignment with true unmet need, measured against global disease burden data. Includes a Diversity Penalty: companies whose trials fail to reflect the demographics of the affected disease population (e.g., gender or racial skew) receive a score reduction.
R&D Productivity & Attribution
How efficiently research investment converts to approved output. Where approved drugs extensively cite publicly-funded foundational research, a Public Science Attribution adjustment reduces the private R&D efficiency credit.
Context Layer
Peer Normalisation
A raw score means nothing without context. A Therapeutic Impact Score of 62 in Oncology — the most competitive, best-resourced therapeutic cluster — represents a fundamentally different achievement from a score of 62 in Rare Disease, where trial infrastructure is scarcer and patient populations smaller. EbiCap adjusts for this through two context layers applied after the five-pillar composite is calculated.
Layer 1 — Therapeutic Cluster Normalisation
Companies are grouped into one of 17 ICD-10 chapter clusters based on where the plurality of their registered trials operate. Each company's score is normalised against its cluster's mean and spread.
Layer 2 — Ownership Risk Adjustment
Using public institutional holdings data, we adjust for shareholder concentration. Do the principal shareholders demand accountability — or tolerate value extraction?
Actionable Signals
What the Score Enables
Identify Unearned Premiums
Spot companies commanding premium valuations on the basis of pipeline size, not quality.
Disease Burden Gaps
Identify therapeutic areas where capital is concentrated relative to global disease burden.
R&D Decoupling Signal
Flag companies whose R&D spend growth is decoupled from HTA-validated output.
ESG Health Benchmark
Integration of health-impact quantitative benchmarks into existing sustainability frameworks.
Sector Benchmarking
Peer-AdjustedImpact in Action — Neurology Cluster
| Rank | Company | TIS | Driver Note | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Neurology Specialist | 74 | Pioneer in rare disease; strong clinical OS endpoints; high reinvestment. | HTA ScoreTrial Registry |
| 02 | Global Therapeutic Leader | 68 | Broad neurology alignment with high-severity Burden Gaps. | Disease BurdenHTA Score |
| --- | Avg. Peer | 41 | Sector mean impacted by high surrogate-endpoint reliance. | |
| 18 | Industry Mid-Cap | 22 | 90% me-too pipeline; executive pay tied to volume not value. | VCSi StructureHTA Score |
Audience
Who We Serve
Institutional Investors
Pension funds and asset managers integrating health into ESG.
Payers & HTA Bodies
National health services benchmarking company standards.
Policymakers
Developing disclosure requirements and accountability frameworks.
Patient Advocates
Requiring evidence-based assessments of where investment is directed.