Blog
March 3, 2025
The Contract NetworkWhy Up to 85% of Clinical Trial Negotiations May Be Wasting Your Time—And How to Fix It
Data-backed insights reveal how sponsors and sites can streamline negotiations, accelerate trial initiation, and get treatments to patients faster.
When negotiation time drags on, trial start-up suffers, and patients wait longer. By leveraging data from real-world agreements, sponsors and sites can focus on the critical issues, skip the predictable back-and-forth, and accelerate clinical research. A data-driven, market-based approach to CTAs isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about bringing life-saving treatments to patients sooner.
CTA Negotiations Take Too Long—But They Don’t Have To
Clinical Trial Agreements (CTAs) often take months to negotiate, delaying essential research and hindering timely patient access to potentially life-saving treatments. However, after analyzing thousands of negotiated clauses, our latest market study, Moneyball for Clinical Trial Agreements, indicates that as many as 85% of disputed CTA negotiation points tend to follow predictable patterns and converge on widely accepted positions.
In other words, the majority of redlines focus on issues that already have clear, established norms. By aligning with these norms upfront—rather than discovering them through round after round of revisions—organizations can eliminate much of the back-and-forth and significantly cut negotiation time without meaningfully increasing risk.
“If institutions and sponsors adopt standard market norms from the outset, they can potentially cut months of delays, improve collaboration, and bring life-saving treatments to patients faster—without compromising legal protections or compliance.”
– “Moneyball for Clinical Trial Agreements”, a market study from The Contract Network
The Data Tells a Clear Story: Many CTA Negotiations Converge Toward Similar Outcomes
While legal and regulatory professionals rightly view contract negotiations as essential for compliance and risk management, the data shows that a high proportion of CTA negotiation points ultimately align with widely accepted final terms. Instead of spending months debating issues whose outcomes routinely end in the same place, sponsors and sites can start closer to these market norms—saving considerable time and resources.
Why Are These Negotiations Still Happening?
Despite patterns emerging in most final outcomes, sponsors and institutions continue to redline the same clauses in every contract. Here’s why:
- Lack of real-world negotiation data – Teams may not fully know the typical end positions.
- Fear of losing an edge – Without reliable benchmarks, parties may feel they must “fight” for terms that, in practice, nearly always converge on standard positions.
- But what if we drafted from the get-go using widely adopted market norms?
What You’ll Gain From This Report
- Analysis of some of the most frequently contested clauses—and how they’re commonly resolved.
- A data-backed breakdown of recurring CTA negotiation trends—showing where most discussions end up and which points truly matter.
- A framework to reduce friction, accelerate trial timelines, and launch clinical research faster.
By starting from prevailing market norms—instead of repeatedly rediscovering them—sites and sponsors can cut down negotiation cycles and ultimately move trials forward faster.
Ready to save time, reduce risk, and get clinical trials off the ground faster?
Request the CTA Moneyball Market Study
An Important Note on Study Limitations
While the study captured a broad sample of negotiated clauses, it may not represent every CTA negotiation scenario. As with any dataset, there can be variations based on the complexity of a study, the policies of specific institutions, and individual negotiating styles. Still, the central finding remains: a large portion of CTA negotiations can be streamlined by referencing real-world data on final outcomes.