IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/qmktec/v7y2009i4p399-443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information, learning, and drug diffusion: The case of Cox-2 inhibitors

Author

Listed:
  • Pradeep Chintagunta
  • Renna Jiang
  • Ginger Jin

Abstract

The recent withdrawal of Cox-2 Inhibitors has generated debate on the role of information in drug diffusion: can the market learn the efficacy of new drugs, or does it depend solely on manufacturer advertising and FDA updates? In this study, we use a novel data set to study the diffusion of three Cox-2 Inhibitors ? Celebrex, Vioxx and Bextra ? before the Vioxx withdrawal. Our study has two unique features: first, we observe each patient?s reported satisfaction after consuming a drug. This patient level data set, together with market level data on FDA updates, media coverage, academic articles, and pharmaceutical advertising, allows us to model individual prescription decisions. Second, we distinguish across-patient learning of a drug?s general efficacy from the within-patient learning of the match between a drug and a patient. Our results suggest that prescription choice is sensitive to many sources of information. At the beginning of 2001 and upon Bextra entry in January 2002, doctors held a strong prior belief about the efficacy of Celebrex, Vioxx, and Bextra. As a result, the learning from patient satisfaction is gradual and more concentrated on drug-patient match than on across-patient spillovers. News articles are weakly beneficial for Cox-2 drug sales, but academic articles appear to be detrimental. The impact of FDA updates is close to zero once we control for academic articles, which suggests that FDA updates follow academic articles and therefore deliver little new information to doctors. We find that drug advertising also influences the choice of a patient?s medication. A number of counterfactual experiments are carried out to quantify the influence of information on market shares.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Pradeep Chintagunta & Renna Jiang & Ginger Jin, 2009. "Information, learning, and drug diffusion: The case of Cox-2 inhibitors," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 399-443, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:qmktec:v:7:y:2009:i:4:p:399-443
    DOI: 10.1007/s11129-009-9072-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11129-009-9072-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11129-009-9072-1?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Venkataraman, S. & Stremersch, S., 2007. "The Debate on Influencing Doctors’ Decisions: Are Drug Characteristics the Missing Link?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-056-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. Ching, Andrew T., 2010. "Consumer learning and heterogeneity: Dynamics of demand for prescription drugs after patent expiration," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 619-638, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Gregory S. Crawford & Matthew Shum, 2005. "Uncertainty and Learning in Pharmaceutical Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1137-1173, July.
    5. Nelson, Philip, 1974. "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(4), pages 729-754, July/Aug..
    6. Daniel A. Ackerberg, 2003. "Advertising, learning, and consumer choice in experience good markets: an empirical examination," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1007-1040, August.
    7. Pierre Azoulay, 2002. "Do Pharmaceutical Sales Respond to Scientific Evidence?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 551-594, December.
    8. Ackerberg, Daniel A, 2001. "Empirically Distinguishing Informative and Prestige Effects of Advertising," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(2), pages 316-333, Summer.
    9. Coscelli, Andrea & Shum, Matthew, 2004. "An empirical model of learning and patient spillovers in new drug entry," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 213-246, October.
    10. Berndt, Ernst R, et al, 1995. "Information, Marketing, and Pricing in the U.S. Antiulcer Drug Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 100-105, May.
    11. Sriram Venkataraman & Stefan Stremersch, 2007. "The Debate on Influencing Doctors' Decisions: Are Drug Characteristics the Missing Link?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1688-1701, November.
    12. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    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. Guofang Huang & Matthew Shum & Wei Tan, 2019. "Is pharmaceutical detailing informative? Evidence from contraindicated drug prescriptions," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 135-160, June.
    2. Jie Bai, 2016. "Melons as Lemons: Asymmetric Information, Consumer Learning and Seller Reputation," Natural Field Experiments 00540, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Simon P. Anderson & Federico Ciliberto & Jura Liaukonyte & Régis Renault, 2016. "Push-me pull-you: comparative advertising in the OTC analgesics industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 1029-1056, November.
    4. Limin Fang, 2022. "The Effects of Online Review Platforms on Restaurant Revenue, Consumer Learning, and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8116-8143, November.
    5. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges and New Developments," Economics Papers 2013-W07, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    6. Kremer, Sara T.M. & Bijmolt, Tammo H.A. & Leeflang, Peter S.H. & Wieringa, Jaap E., 2008. "Generalizations on the effectiveness of pharmaceutical promotional expenditures," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 234-246.
    7. Pradeep Chintagunta & Tülin Erdem & Peter E. Rossi & Michel Wedel, 2006. "Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 604-616, 11-12.
    8. Arcidiacono, Peter & Ellickson, Paul B. & Landry, Peter & Ridley, David B., 2013. "Pharmaceutical followers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 538-553.
    9. David B. Ridley, 2015. "Payments, Promotion, And The Purple Pill," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 86-103, January.
    10. Katharina Elisabeth Blankart & Tom Stargardt, 2020. "The impact of drug quality ratings from health technology assessments on the adoption of new drugs by physicians in Germany," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 63-82, October.
    11. Nuno Camacho & Bas Donkers & Stefan Stremersch, 2011. "Predictably Non-Bayesian: Quantifying Salience Effects in Physician Learning About Drug Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 305-320, 03-04.
    12. Saxell, Tanja, 2014. "Industrial organization studies on pharmaceutical markets," Research Reports 65, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    13. 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.
    14. Xiao, Mo, 2010. "Is quality accreditation effective? Evidence from the childcare market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 708-721, November.
    15. Saxell, Tanja, 2014. "Industrial organization studies on pharmaceutical markets," Research Reports P65, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Dirk Bergemann & Juuso Välimäki, 2006. "Dynamic Pricing of New Experience Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(4), pages 713-743, August.
    17. Nitin Mehta & Xinlei (Jack) Chen & Om Narasimhan, 2008. "Informing, Transforming, and Persuading: Disentangling the Multiple Effects of Advertising on Brand Choice Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 334-355, 05-06.
    18. Andrew Ching & Masakazu Ishihara, 2010. "The effects of detailing on prescribing decisions under quality uncertainty," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 123-165, June.
    19. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Priyatam Anurag & Chirantan Chatterjee & Enrico Pennings, 2021. "How Does Regulation Impact Strategic Repositioning by Firms Across Submarkets? Evidence from the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 209-227, September.
    20. Bradley T. Shapiro, 2018. "Informational Shocks, Off-Label Prescribing, and the Effects of Physician Detailing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5925-5945, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Learning; Drug diffusion; Prescription choice; Patient satisfaction; D8; I1; M3; C5;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • L84 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Personal, Professional, and Business Services

    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:7:y:2009:i:4:p:399-443. 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.