Biopharma intelligence
Why per-patient costs run 30–50% below US/EU sites
A breakdown of site, labor, and overhead deltas that make the same protocol dramatically cheaper to run.
The headline figure sponsors ask about first is cost: running the same protocol in the Philippines instead of the US or EU. The 30–50% range quoted on this site is directional, drawn from the categories below, not an audited benchmark — the exact figure is a client-alignment item pending sourcing before launch, and it will carry a citation the day it does.
Where the delta comes from
Three cost centers move together on a Philippine site, and each is structural rather than a discount on quality:
- Site and staff costs — clinical salaries and per-visit site fees are set against the local cost of living, not US/EU benchmarks.
- Overhead — facility and administrative overhead at urban trial-capable hospitals runs lower than comparable US/EU academic centers.
- Monitoring — a dense investigator network in a small number of metro areas means fewer, cheaper monitoring visits per enrolled patient than a geographically spread US/EU site network.
What doesn't get cheaper
Quality is not the trade-off. Sites run under ICH-GCP with the same source documentation and monitoring visits a US site would expect, and every recommended site is selected on that basis, not on price alone. A sponsor QA group reviewing a Philippine site sees the same audit trail they would expect anywhere.
How to read the number honestly
30–50% is a range worth pressure-testing against your own protocol, not accepting on its face — per-patient cost depends heavily on indication, visit schedule, and site type. (Source to be supplied.) Ask for a line-item comparison against your specific protocol before committing budget, not just the headline range.