|Articles|December 10, 2012

Benchmarking Investigator Payments

Author(s)Jeremy Klein

If you have not read “Sensible approaches for reducing clinical trial costs” it is worth a read. It gives one of the better economic assessments of clinical trial costs. In this study the authors quantify the average spending, per trial, on investigator payments and the figure is quite staggering as investigator payments account for 48% of the total trials cost. So it goes without saying that sponsors and CROs can’t afford to get the investigator payment level wrong. For sponsors and CROs, the downsides of not paying market-rate investigator fees impact both the financial health of the organization and the ability to recruit high-performing and experienced sites. Pay too much and your R&D budget evaporates too quickly, pay too little and it will be difficult to recruit experienced sites.

Industry Standard Research (ISR) recently launched a report that looked to quantify investigator payments/ grants across a number of therapeutic areas, study phases, and the types of compounds being investigated. In the “Benchmarking Investigator Payments” report we wanted to find what drives the costs of payments up and down so that sponsors and CROs can benchmark their payment levels and better plan for study costs.

Averages can be deceiving. The average investigator payment/ grant per patient was $6,900, but that figure can vary wildly based on the therapeutic are (e.g. Oncology), Phase (e.g. Phase I), and compound type (e.g. Biosimilar). Trial length and complexity also play a large role in the payment levels. But it is not all about the money for some investigators. Many investigators indicated they would consider taking a lower payment if they were working on a novel compound.


Related to this article

© photon_photo - © photon_photo - stock.adobe.com
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.
Where the Industry Is Headed as Clinical, Operational, and Real-World Data Connect
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.
What Expanding AI Ecosystems Mean for Sponsor Complexity and Oversight
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, argues that CROs must act as orchestrators rather than aggregators—and that the real test of any AI ecosystem is whether it reduces sponsor coordination burden or just hands it back to them.