IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/fhecpo/v27y2024i2p117-146n1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

COVID-19 Biopharmaceutical Innovation and Industry Appropriation

Author

Listed:
  • Philipson Tomas J.

    (The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

  • Fendrick A. Mark

    (The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Kataria Aarushi

    (The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

  • Di Cera Giuseppe

    (The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

  • Zhao Qi

    (The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

  • Guo Susu

    (The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

  • Abbasi Attaullah

    (The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

Abstract

The rapid emergence of vaccines and therapeutics in response to the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrated the value of medical innovation. These advances not only led to enhanced patient welfare by reducing the disease’s mortality and morbidity but also reduced the need for costly prevention measures, such as cuts in economic activity. This paper offers the first estimate of the portion of economic value generated by these medical innovations that was appropriated as earnings by the innovating companies, measured by the ratio of company earnings to the overall societal value generated by the innovations. To estimate the value and appropriation of COVID-19 innovations, one must necessarily make assumptions about what disease-specific and preventive activity would have been in the absence of these new innovations. To obtain robustness in our findings across such scenarios, we estimate industry appropriation across a wide range of counterfactual scenarios that would occur under no innovation. These scenarios include previous assessments of the contributing subparts of the value generated by the innovations. Our primary finding is that, within the large range of these counterfactual scenarios, upper-bound measures of the proportion of value appropriated by the industry ranged from 0.2 % to 4.6 % of the value generated by the vaccine and treatment innovations. Even though these are upper bound appropriation rates, they are significantly lower than those documented for other significant health sciences innovations. This suggests that COVID-19 vaccines and treatments were remarkable, not only in their swift development but also in the considerable societal value they provided, which extended far beyond the rewards to the innovating companies.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipson Tomas J. & Fendrick A. Mark & Kataria Aarushi & Di Cera Giuseppe & Zhao Qi & Guo Susu & Abbasi Attaullah, 2024. "COVID-19 Biopharmaceutical Innovation and Industry Appropriation," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 27(2), pages 117-146.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:fhecpo:v:27:y:2024:i:2:p:117-146:n:1001
    DOI: 10.1515/fhep-2024-0049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2024-0049
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/fhep-2024-0049?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kremer, Michael & Snyder, Christopher, 2018. "Preventives Versus Treatments Redux: Tighter Bounds on Distortions in Innovation Incentives with an Application to the Global D," CEPR Discussion Papers 12751, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Michael Kremer & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Preventives Versus Treatments Redux: Tighter Bounds on Distortions in Innovation Incentives with an Application to the Global Demand for HIV Pharmaceuticals," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(1), pages 235-273, August.
    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. Matthew Goodkin-Gold & Michael Kremer & Christopher M. Snyder & Heidi Williams, 2024. "Optimal Vaccine Subsidies for Epidemic Diseases," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 895-909, July.
    2. Kremer, Michael & Williams, Heidi & Snyder, Christopher & Goodkin-Gold, Matthew, 2020. "Optimal Subsidies for Prevention of Infectious Disease," CEPR Discussion Papers 15433, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Matthew Goodkin-Gold & Michael Kremer & Christopher M. Snyder & Heidi L. Williams, 2020. "Optimal Vaccine Subsidies for Endemic and Epidemic Diseases," Working Papers 2020-162, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    4. David E. Bloom & Michael Kuhn & Klaus Prettner, 2022. "Modern Infectious Diseases: Macroeconomic Impacts and Policy Responses," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(1), pages 85-131, March.
    5. Schankerman, Mark & Galasso, Alberto, 2020. "Licensing Life-Saving Drugs for Developing Countries: Evidence from the Medicines Patent Pool," CEPR Discussion Papers 15544, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Christopher M. Snyder & Victor J. Tremblay, 2018. "Introduction to the Special Issue on “The Intersection Between Industrial Organization and Healthcare Economics”," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(1), pages 1-6, August.
    7. Arzi Adbi & Chirantan Chatterjee & Anant Mishra, 2022. "How Do MNEs and Domestic Firms Respond Locally to a Global Demand Shock? Evidence from a Pandemic," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9003-9025, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:bpj:fhecpo:v:27:y:2024:i:2:p:117-146:n:1001. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.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.