This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Do Off-Label Drug Practices Argue Against FDA Efficacy Requirements? Testing an Argument by Structured Conversations with Experts

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Klein, Daniel () (Department of Economics)
Tabarrok, Alexander () (Department of Economics)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 with amendments in 1962 is inconsistent regarding FDA certification of a drug’s efficacy. The act requires efficacy certification for the drug’s initial (“on-label”) uses, but does not require certification before physicians may prescribe for subsequent (“off-label”) uses. Are there good reasons for this inconsistency? Using a sequential online survey we carried on a “virtual conversation” with some 500 physicians. The survey asked whether efficacy requirements should be imposed on off-label uses, and almost all physicians said no. It asked whether the efficacy requirements for initial uses should be dropped, and most said no. We then gently challenged respondents asking them whether opposing efficacy requirements in one case but not the other involved an inconsistency. In response to this challenge we received hundreds of written commentaries. This investigation taps the specialized knowledge of hundreds of physicians and organizes their insights into challenges to the consistency argument. Thus, it employs a method of structured conversations with experts to test the merit of an argument. Is the consistency argument a case of “foolish consistency,” or does it hold up even under scrutiny?

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/wp_dk_at.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by The Ratio Institute in its series Ratio Working Papers with number 28.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 45 pages
Date of creation: 20 Dec 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hhs:ratioi:0028

Contact details of provider:
Postal: The Ratio Institute, P.O. Box 5095, SE-102 42 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 08-587 054 00
Fax: 08-587 054 05
Email:
Web page: http://www.ratio.se/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Niclas Berggren).

Related research
Keywords: Food and Drug Administration; drug approval; efficacy requirements; off-label uses; on-label uses; certification; liberalization;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Keith, Alison, 1995. "Regulating Information about Aspirin and the Prevention of Heart Attack," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 96-99, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? No RePEc service, like IDEAS, charges for the use or the display of bibliographic data.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-18.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.