I would say that for-profits may (in total) lead to better outcomes because they are more willing to experiment (many will fail, some will be great).
Whilst many are still targetting the known compounds, they also have plans to develop novel compounds, that in the end may be better for the patients/participants/clients.
"I imagine that the time to market is reduced with a non-profit approach, thereby delaying access, but what other limitations are imposed that limit patient benefit?"
Did you mean to say reduced with a for-profit approach (i.e. time to market increased for a non-profit, thereby delaying access)?
I would say that for-profits may (in total) lead to better outcomes because they are more willing to experiment (many will fail, some will be great).
Whilst many are still targetting the known compounds, they also have plans to develop novel compounds, that in the end may be better for the patients/participants/clients.
"I imagine that the time to market is reduced with a non-profit approach, thereby delaying access, but what other limitations are imposed that limit patient benefit?"
Did you mean to say reduced with a for-profit approach (i.e. time to market increased for a non-profit, thereby delaying access)?
Right you are, thanks for catching that.
Victoria Hale might have an interesting perspective on the pros/cons of the non-profit approach.