IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/15723.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Generic Utilization Rates, Real Pharmaceutical Prices, and Research and Development Expenditures

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph P. Cook
  • Graeme Hunter
  • John A. Vernon

Abstract

Generic utilization rates have risen substantially since the enactment of The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Hatch-Waxman) in 1984. In the year Hatch-Waxman was enacted, generic utilization rates were 19 percent; in contrast, today, the generic utilization rate is approximately 70 percent. Striking a balance between access to existing medicines and access to yet-to-be-discovered (and developed) drugs, through research incentives, was the principal objective of this landmark legislation. However, given the current rate of generic utilization, it seems plausible, if not likely, that any balance achieved by the 1984 Act has since shifted away from research incentives and towards improved access, ceteris paribus. Among other factors, recent mandatory substitution laws in most states have driven up generic utilization rates. In the current paper, we employ semi-annual data from 1992 to 2008 to examine the link between generic utilization rates and real U.S. prescription drug prices. This link is important because previous research has identified a causal relationship between real drug prices in the U.S. and industry-level R&D investment intensity. We identify a statistically significant, positive relationship between generic utilization rates in the U.S. and real U.S. prescription drug prices. Specifically, we estimate an elasticity of real drug prices to generic utilization rates of -0.15. This finding, when coupled with previous empirical work on the determinants of pharmaceutical R&D intensity, suggests an elasticity of R&D to generic utilization rates of about 0.090. While the magnitude of this elasticity is modest, as theory would predict--the effect of greater generic erosion of brand sales at patent expiration is heavily discounted due to the long time horizon to generic erosion when an R&D project is in clinical development. However, because there has been a very substantial increase in generic utilization rates since 1984, the impact on R&D is nevertheless quite large. We explore this and other issues in the current paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph P. Cook & Graeme Hunter & John A. Vernon, 2010. "Generic Utilization Rates, Real Pharmaceutical Prices, and Research and Development Expenditures," NBER Working Papers 15723, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:15723
    Note: EH
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15723.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ulrike Malmendier & Geoffrey Tate, 2005. "CEO Overconfidence and Corporate Investment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(6), pages 2661-2700, December.
    2. Henry G. Grabowski, 1968. "The Determinants of Industrial Research and Development: A Study of the Chemical, Drug, and Petroleum Industries," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 76(2), pages 292-292.
    3. Giaccotto, Carmelo & Santerre, Rexford E & Vernon, John A, 2005. "Drug Prices and Research and Development Investment Behavior in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(1), pages 195-214, April.
    4. Hall, Bronwyn H., 1992. "Investment and Research and Development at the Firm Level: Does the Source of Financing Matter?," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5j59j6x3, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    5. John A. Vernon, 2005. "Examining the link between price regulation and pharmaceutical R&D investment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.
    6. R. Glenn Hubbard, 1998. "Capital-Market Imperfections and Investment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 193-225, March.
    7. Grabowski, Henry G & Vernon, John M, 1992. "Brand Loyalty, Entry, and Price Competition in Pharmaceuticals after the 1984 Drug Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(2), pages 331-350, October.
    8. Vernon, John A. & Golec, Joseph H. & Lutter, Randall & Nardinelli, Clark, 2009. "An exploratory study of FDA new drug review times, prescription drug user fee acts, and R&D spending," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 1260-1274, November.
    9. David Reiffen & Michael R. Ward, 2005. "Generic Drug Industry Dynamics," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 37-49, February.
    10. 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. Branstetter, Lee & Chatterjee, Chirantan & Higgins, Matthew J., 2022. "Generic competition and the incentives for early-stage pharmaceutical innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    2. Ali Bonakdar Tehrani & Norman V. Carroll, 2017. "The Medicaid Rebate: Changes in Oncology Drug Prices After the Affordable Care Act," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 513-520, August.

    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. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Bryan P. Schmutz & Rexford E. Santerre, 2013. "Examining The Link Between Cash Flow, Market Value, And Research And Development Investment Spending In The Medical Device Industry," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 157-167, February.
    3. Vernon, John A. & Golec, Joseph H. & Lutter, Randall & Nardinelli, Clark, 2009. "An exploratory study of FDA new drug review times, prescription drug user fee acts, and R&D spending," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 1260-1274, November.
    4. John A. Vernon, 2005. "Examining the link between price regulation and pharmaceutical R&D investment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Giaccotto, Carmelo & Santerre, Rexford E & Vernon, John A, 2005. "Drug Prices and Research and Development Investment Behavior in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(1), pages 195-214, April.
    6. John Vernon & Joseph Golec & J. Stevens, 2010. "Comparative Effectiveness Regulations and Pharmaceutical Innovation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(10), pages 877-887, October.
    7. Barrenho, E & Smith, PC & Miraldo, M, 2013. "The determinants of attrition in drug development: a duration analysis," Working Papers 12204, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
    8. Lee, Daeyong, 2018. "Impact of the excise tax on firm R&D and performance in the medical device industry: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 854-871.
    9. Bastian Rake, 2017. "Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 691-727, September.
    10. Toole, Andrew A, 2007. "Does Public Scientific Research Complement Private Investment in Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(1), pages 81-104, February.
    11. Pierre Dubois & Olivier de Mouzon & Fiona Scott-Morton & Paul Seabright, 2015. "Market size and pharmaceutical innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 844-871, October.
    12. Joseph Golec & John Vernon, 2009. "Financial risk of the Biotech Industry versus the Pharmaceutical Industry," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 155-165, September.
    13. Joseph Golec & John Vernon, 2010. "Financial Effects of Pharmaceutical Price Regulation on R&D Spending by EU versus US Firms," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(8), pages 615-628, August.
    14. Joseph H. Golec & John A. Vernon, 2006. "European Pharmaceutical Price Regulation, Firm Profitability, and R&D Spending," NBER Working Papers 12676, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Stephan Eger & Jörg Mahlich, 2014. "Pharmaceutical regulation in Europe and its impact on corporate R&D," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Guariglia, Alessandra & Liu, Pei, 2014. "To what extent do financing constraints affect Chinese firms' innovation activities?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 223-240.
    17. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:6:y:2008:i:36:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Alfredo Bobillo & Juan Rodriguez Sanz & Fernando Tejerina Gaite, 2009. "Investment Decisions, Liquidity, and Institutional Activism: An International Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 25-40, April.
    19. Dirk Czarnitzki & Hanna Hottenrott & Susanne Thorwarth, 2011. "Industrial research versus development investment: the implications of financial constraints," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(3), pages 527-544.
    20. Moreno Gigi & van Eijndhoven Emma & Benner Jennifer & Sullivan Jeffrey, 2017. "The Long-Term Impact of Price Controls in Medicare Part D," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 1-56, December.
    21. Bergman , Mats A. & Granlund, David & Rudholm, Niklas, 2016. "Squeezing the last drop out of your suppliers: an empirical study of market-based purchasing policies for generic pharmaceuticals," Umeå Economic Studies 921, Umeå University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • K0 - Law and Economics - - General
    • L0 - Industrial Organization - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:15723. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.