IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Off-Label Drug Practices vs. FDA Efficacy Requirements


  • Daniel B. Klein
  • Alexander Tabarrok


The amended Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act requires efficacy certification for a drug's initial uses ("on-label"), but does not require certification before physicians may prescribe the drug for subsequent uses ("off-label"). Does it make sense to require FDA efficacy certification for new drugs but not for new uses of old drugs? 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; almost all physicians said no. It asked whether the efficacy requirements for initial uses should be "dropped", and most physicians said no. We then asked respondents whether opposing efficacy requirements in one case but not the other involved an inconsistency. In response, we received hundreds of written commentaries. We organize and discuss these commentaries with an eye to understanding how the medical market certifies off-label drug uses and how this compares to FDA certification. Does off-label medicine use suggest that efficacy requirements should be placed on new uses of old drugs? Does it suggest that efficacy requirements on new drugs should be lifted? We explore these questions, and ask whether the response of many of the doctors exhibits the familiar behavior bias toward the status quo. Copyright © 2008 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc..

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel B. Klein & Alexander Tabarrok, 2008. "Off-Label Drug Practices vs. FDA Efficacy Requirements," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(5), pages 743-775, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:67:y:2008:i:5:p:743-775

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:bla:ajecsc:v:67:y:2008:i:5:p:743-775. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.