IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/qmktec/v14y2016i3d10.1007_s11129-016-9170-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the cost of strategic entry delay in pharmaceuticals: The case of Ambien CR

Author

Listed:
  • Bradley T. Shapiro

    (University of Chicago Booth School of Business)

Abstract

With the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, the FDA included an unchallengeable exclusivity period for newly approved drugs, independent of patents. This potentially generates an incentive for firms to strategically delay the introduction of new versions (reformulations) of drugs until just before patent expiration of the original drug. This way the reformulated drug competes mainly with newly introduced generics of the original drug. If instead, the reformulated drug was to be introduced well before the original drug’s patent expires, the reformulated drug would compete only with the original drug. While the pattern of strategic delay is well documented in the literature, its effects on consumers and firms are not. Reformulations may increase utility through improved efficacy and through fewer doses per day or a more even molecule decay rate. However, as suggested in the press and literature, it is also possible that the adoption of reformulated products is mostly the result of advertising rather than product-related benefits. Using detailed prescribing and pricing data from the prescription sleep aid market, I document significant adoption of the reformulation Ambien CR and show that it is not only driven by advertising. I use these estimates to evaluate two different policies designed to induce earlier entry of Ambien CR. I find that there are large potential gains in consumer surplus and in revenue.

Suggested Citation

  • Bradley T. Shapiro, 2016. "Estimating the cost of strategic entry delay in pharmaceuticals: The case of Ambien CR," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 201-231, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:qmktec:v:14:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11129-016-9170-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11129-016-9170-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11129-016-9170-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11129-016-9170-9?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. Jerry Hausman & Gregory Leonard & J. Douglas Zona, 1994. "Competitive Analysis with Differentiated Products," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 34, pages 143-157.
    2. repec:adr:anecst:y:1994:i:34:p:06 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Murray L. Aitken & Ernst R. Berndt & Barry Bosworth & Iain M. Cockburn & Richard Frank & Michael Kleinrock & Bradley T. Shapiro, 2013. "The Regulation of Prescription Drug Competition and Market Responses: Patterns in Prices and Sales following Loss of Exclusivity," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Modeling Health Care Costs, pages 243-271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Lee Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew J. Higgins, 2016. "Regulation and welfare: evidence from paragraph IV generic entry in the pharmaceutical industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 857-890, November.
    5. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    7. Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber & Ashley Swanson, 2015. "Prescription Drug Use under Medicare Part D: A Linear Model of Nonlinear Budget Sets," NBER Working Papers 20976, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Toshiaki Iizuka & Ginger Z. Jin, 2007. "Direct To Consumer Advertising And Prescription Choice," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 771-771, December.
    9. Mark Duggan & Fiona M. Scott Morton, 2006. "The Distortionary Effects of Government Procurement: Evidence from Medicaid Prescription Drug Purchasing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(1), pages 1-30.
    10. Natalie Mizik & Robert Jacobson, 2004. "Are Physicians ÜEasy MarksÝ? Quantifying the Effects of Detailing and Sampling on New Prescriptions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1704-1715, December.
    11. Sara Fisher Ellison & Catherine Wolfram, 2006. "Coordinating on Lower Prices: Pharmaceutical Pricing under Political Pressure," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 37(2), pages 324-340, Summer.
    12. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    13. Sara Fisher Ellison & Catherine Wolfram, 2006. "Coordinating on lower prices: pharmaceutical pricing under political pressure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(2), pages 324-340, June.
    14. Toshiaki Iizuka & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2005. "The Effect of Prescription Drug Advertising on Doctor Visits," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 701-727, September.
    15. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Chung-Ying, 2020. "Pricing strategy and moral hazard: Copay coupons in pharmaceuticals," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Kyle Wilson & Mo Xiao & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "Entry threat, entry delay, and Internet speed: The timing of the U.S. broadband rollout," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 3-44, February.
    3. Neha Bairoliya & Pinar Karaca-Mandic & Jeffrey S. McCullough & Amil Petrin, 2017. "Consumer Learning and the Entry of Generic Pharmaceuticals," NBER Working Papers 23662, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Callejas, Jerónimo & Mohapatra, Debi Prasad, 2021. "Welfare effects of public procurement of medicines: Evidence from Ecuador," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).

    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. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    2. Tomaso Duso & Annika Herr & Moritz Suppliet, 2014. "The Welfare Impact Of Parallel Imports: A Structural Approach Applied To The German Market For Oral Anti‐Diabetics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1036-1057, September.
    3. Castanheira, Micael & Ornaghi, Carmine & Siotis, Georges, 2019. "The unexpected consequences of generic entry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    4. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    5. Chatterjee, Chirantan & Kubo, Kensuke & Pingali, Viswanath, 2015. "The consumer welfare implications of governmental policies and firm strategy in markets for medicines," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 255-273.
    6. Martin S. Gaynor & Samuel A. Kleiner & William B. Vogt, 2013. "A Structural Approach to Market Definition With an Application to the Hospital Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 243-289, June.
    7. Bokhari, Farasat A.S. & Mariuzzo, Franco, 2018. "Demand estimation and merger simulations for drugs: Logits v. AIDS," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 653-685.
    8. Hotle, Susan L. & Castillo, Marco & Garrow, Laurie A. & Higgins, Matthew J., 2015. "The impact of advance purchase deadlines on airline consumers’ search and purchase behaviors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-16.
    9. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K., 2007. "Estimation of patent licensing value using a flexible demand specification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 242-258, August.
    10. Francesco Decarolis & Maria Polyakova & Stephen P. Ryan, 2020. "Subsidy Design in Privately Provided Social Insurance: Lessons from Medicare Part D," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1712-1752.
    11. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2021. "Foundations of Demand Estimation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2301, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    12. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    13. Lurkin, Virginie & Garrow, Laurie A. & Higgins, Matthew J. & Newman, Jeffrey P. & Schyns, Michael, 2017. "Accounting for price endogeneity in airline itinerary choice models: An application to Continental U.S. markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 228-246.
    14. Daniel Toro-Gonzalez & Jia Yan & R. Karina Gallardo & Jill J. McCluskey, 2013. "Estimation of Unobserved Attributes Using a Control Function Approach, Modeling the Demand for Mint Flavored Gum," Working Papers 2013-06, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    15. Mattia Girotti & Richard Meade, 2017. "U.S. Savings Banks' Demutualization and Depositor Welfare," Working Papers 2017-08, Auckland University of Technology, Department of Economics.
    16. Eugenio J. Miravete, 2004. "The Doubtful Profitability of Foggy Pricing," Working Papers 04-07, NET Institute.
    17. Rachel Griffith & Lars Nesheim & Martin O'Connell, 2018. "Income effects and the welfare consequences of tax in differentiated product oligopoly," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), pages 305-341, March.
    18. Ryo Sakamoto & Kyle Stiegert, 2018. "Comparing competitive toughness to benchmark outcomes in retail oligopoly pricing," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 44-60, December.
    19. Ruben Loon & Tom Gosens & Jan Rouwendal, 2014. "Cultural heritage and the attractiveness of cities: evidence from recreation trips," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(3), pages 253-285, August.
    20. Jan De Loecker & Paul T. Scott, 2016. "Estimating market power Evidence from the US Brewing Industry," NBER Working Papers 22957, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pharmaceutical innovation; Entry; Regulation; Advertising;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • M38 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:kap:qmktec:v:14:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11129-016-9170-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.