IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v268y2021ics0277953620305876.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmaceuticals as a market for “lemons”: Theory and practice

Author

Listed:
  • Light, Donald W.
  • Lexchin, Joel R.

Abstract

Drawing on economic theory and institutional analysis, this paper reframes Akerlof's theory of how a market for lemons operates and argues that each of the many markets for lemons must be studied empirically to document how different stakeholders cope with the problems of information asymmetry, secrecy, and power. Such markets are a new field for sociological analysis. To illustrate, the paper characterizes pharmaceuticals as a multi-tier market of information asymmetry in which actors in each tier have substantial control over how much they disclose about hidden risks of harm. Such a market rewards the production and sale of “lemons.” Current incentives and institutional practices reward developing a large number of barely therapeutically innovative drugs and ignoring their often hidden or understated harmful side effects. They reward designing and executing substandard, biased trials that mislead the FDA and regulators abroad to approve new drugs without clear evidence of their degree of harm. Approved drugs are likely to be “lemons” but promoted as “safe and effective.” The result is substantial hospitalizations and deaths from adverse drug reactions. A “risk proliferation syndrome” of institutional practices maximizes sales, profits, and exposure to toxic side effects. An “inverse benefit law” of marketing operates as companies try to maximize sales. The probability of benefits decreases but the chances of lemons adverse events do not. The details presented here deepen understanding of how markets for lemons thrive on information asymmetry, secrecy, and power. Lessons can be applied to other markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Light, Donald W. & Lexchin, Joel R., 2021. "Pharmaceuticals as a market for “lemons”: Theory and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:268:y:2021:i:c:s0277953620305876
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620305876
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113368?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Irving Kirsch & Brett J Deacon & Tania B Huedo-Medina & Alan Scoboria & Thomas J Moore & Blair T Johnson, 2008. "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Brody, H. & Light, D.W., 2011. "The inverse benefit law: How drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(3), pages 399-404.
    3. Hneine Brax & Racha Fadlallah & Lina Al-Khaled & Lara A Kahale & Hala Nas & Fadi El-Jardali & Elie A Akl, 2017. "Association between physicians’ interaction with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    4. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    5. Huseyin Naci & Maximilian Salcher-Konrad & Aaron Kesselheim & Beate Wieseler & Lise Rochaix & Rita Redberg & Georgia Salanti & Emily Jackson & Sarah Garner & T Scott Stroup & Andrea Cipriani, 2020. "Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval," Post-Print halshs-02875099, HAL.
    6. Mary K. Olson, 2002. "Pharmaceutical Policy Change and the Safety of New Drugs," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(S2), pages 615-642.
    7. Olson, Mary K., 2004. "Are novel drugs more risky for patients than less novel drugs?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1135-1158, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francisco Polidoro, 2020. "Knowledge, routines, and cognitive effects in nonmarket selection environments: An examination of the regulatory review of innovations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2400-2435, December.
    2. Philipson, Tomas & Berndt, Ernst R. & Gottschalk, Adrian H.B. & Sun, Eric, 2008. "Cost-benefit analysis of the FDA: The case of the prescription drug user fee acts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1306-1325, June.
    3. Andreas Schick & Kathleen L. Miller & Michael Lanthier & Gerald Dal Pan & Clark Nardinelli, 2017. "Evaluation of Pre-marketing Factors to Predict Post-marketing Boxed Warnings and Safety Withdrawals," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 497-503, June.
    4. Guy David & Sara Markowitz & Seth Richards-Shubik, 2010. "The Effects of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Promotion on Adverse Drug Events and Regulation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 1-25, November.
    5. Olson, Mary K., 2008. "The risk we bear: The effects of review speed and industry user fees on new drug safety," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 175-200, March.
    6. Francisco Polidoro & Matt Theeke, 2012. "Getting Competition Down to a Science: The Effects of Technological Competition on Firms' Scientific Publications," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1135-1153, August.
    7. Anna Chorniy & James Bailey & Abdulkadir Civan & Michael Maloney, 2021. "Regulatory review time and pharmaceutical research and development," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 113-128, January.
    8. Assaf Razin & Efraim Sadka & Chi-Wa Yuen, 1999. "An Information-Based Model of Foreign Direct Investment: The Gains from Trade Revisited," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 6(4), pages 579-596, November.
    9. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. König, Philipp J. & Pothier, David, 2018. "Safe but fragile: Information acquisition, sponsor support and shadow bank runs," Discussion Papers 15/2018, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    11. Ritu Agarwal & Michelle Dugas & Guodong (Gordon) Gao & P. K. Kannan, 2020. "Emerging technologies and analytics for a new era of value-centered marketing in healthcare," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 9-23, January.
    12. Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2020. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating Under Asymmetric Information," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt08c456vk, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    13. Yaofeng Fu & Ruokun Huang & Yiran Sheng, 2017. "Labor Contract Law -An Economic View," Papers 1702.03977, arXiv.org.
    14. Ghosh, Suman, 2007. "Job mobility and careers in firms," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 603-621, June.
    15. Eunsoo Kim & Suyon Kim & Jaehong Lee, 2021. "Do Foreign Investors Affect Carbon Emission Disclosure? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-14, September.
    16. Frédéric Gannon & Vincent Touzé, 2006. "Insurance and Optimal Growth," Post-Print halshs-00085181, HAL.
    17. Veronica Guerrieri & Robert Shimer, 2018. "Markets with Multidimensional Private Information," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 250-274, May.
    18. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2021. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9033, CESifo.
    19. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2020. "The Social Costs of Side Trading," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1608-1622.
    20. Tahir Andrabi & Jishnu Das & Asim Ijaz Khwaja, 2017. "Report Cards: The Impact of Providing School and Child Test Scores on Educational Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(6), pages 1535-1563, June.

    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:eee:socmed:v:268:y:2021:i:c:s0277953620305876. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.