IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v15y2020i1p18-29_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fairness in drug prices: do economists think differently from the public?

Author

Listed:
  • Trujillo, Antonio J.
  • Karmarkar, Taruja
  • Alexander, Caleb
  • Padula, William
  • Greene, Jeremy
  • Anderson, Gerard

Abstract

Using dual-entitlement theory as the guide, we conducted a survey of economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research asking them a series of questions about the fairness of drug prices in the United States. Public opinion surveys have repeatedly shown that the public perceives drug prices to be unfair, but economists trained in laws of supply and demand may have different perceptions. Three hundred and ten senior economists responded to our survey. Forty-five percent agreed that drug prices were unfair when people, specifically low-income individuals, could not afford their prescription medications. Sixty-five percent oppose a dollar threshold, or upper limit, on drug prices. The economists recommend the most promising policy change would be to provide the government additional negotiating power and price controls would moderately impact investment in pharmaceutical research and development.

Suggested Citation

  • Trujillo, Antonio J. & Karmarkar, Taruja & Alexander, Caleb & Padula, William & Greene, Jeremy & Anderson, Gerard, 2020. "Fairness in drug prices: do economists think differently from the public?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 18-29, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:18-29_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133118000427/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:18-29_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.