IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i5p571-586.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Game Theoretic Analysis of Competition Between Vaccine and Drug Companies during Disease Contraction and Recovery

Author

Listed:
  • Kjell Hausken

    (Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway)

  • Mthuli Ncube

    (Said Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK)

Abstract

Background Infectious diseases such as COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS are behaviorally challenging for persons, vaccine and drug companies, and donors. Methods In 3 linked games in which a disease may or may not be contracted, N persons choose risky or safe behavior (game 1). Two vaccine companies (game 2) and 2 drug companies (game 3) choose whether to develop vaccines and drugs. Each person chooses whether to buy 1 vaccine (if no disease contraction) or 1 drug (if disease contraction). A donor subsidizes vaccine and drug developments and purchases. Nature probabilistically chooses disease contraction, recovery versus death with and without each drug, and whether vaccines and drugs are developed successfully. COVID-19 data are used for parameter estimation. Results Each person chooses risky behavior if its utility outweighs safe behavior, accounting for nature’s probability of disease contraction which depends on how many are vaccinated. Each person buys a vaccine or drug if the companies produce them and if their utilities (accounting for side effects and virus mutation) outweigh the costs, which may be subsidized by a sponsor. Discussion Drug purchases depend on nature’s recovery probability exceeding the probability in the absence of a drug. Each company develops and produces a vaccine or drug if nature’s probability of successful development is high, if sufficiently many persons buy the vaccine or drug at a sales price that sufficiently exceeds the production price, and if the donor sponsors. Conclusion Accounting for all players’ interlinked decisions allowing 14 outcomes, which is challenging without a game theoretic analysis, the donor maximizes all persons’ expected utilities at the societal level to adjust how persons’ purchases and the companies’ development and production are subsidized. Highlights A game theoretic approach can help explain the production decisions of vaccine and drug companies, and the decisions of persons and a donor, impacted by Nature. In 3 linked games, N persons choose risky behavior if its utility outweighs safe behavior. Vaccine and drug companies develop vaccines and drugs sponsored by a donor if profitable, allowing 14 outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kjell Hausken & Mthuli Ncube, 2022. "A Game Theoretic Analysis of Competition Between Vaccine and Drug Companies during Disease Contraction and Recovery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 571-586, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:5:p:571-586
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211053563
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211053563
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211053563?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Kremer & Christopher M. Snyder, 2003. "Why Are Drugs More Profitable Than Vaccines?," NBER Working Papers 9833, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Michèle Belot & Syngjoo Choi & Egon Tripodi & Eline van den Broek-Altenburg & Julian C. Jamison & Nicholas W. Papageorge, 2021. "Unequal consequences of Covid 19: representative evidence from six countries," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 769-783, September.
    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. Jung, Haeil & Kim, Jun Hyung & Hong, Gihyeon, 2023. "Impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on single-person households in South Korea," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Gabriella Conti & Pamela Giustinelli, 2025. "For Better or Worse? Subjective Expectations and Cost‐Benefit Trade‐Offs in Health Behavior: An Application to Lockdown Compliance in the United Kingdom," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(5), pages 992-1012, May.
    3. Andrew E. Clark & Conchita D’Ambrosio & Anthony Lepinteur, 2022. "Correction to: the Fall in Income Inequality during COVID-19 in Four European Countries," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(2), pages 503-507, June.
    4. Andrew E. Clark & Anthony Lepinteur, 2022. "Pandemic Policy and Life Satisfaction in Europe," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 68(2), pages 393-408, June.
    5. Kjell Hausken & Mthuli Ncube, 2017. "Policy makers, the international community and the population in the prevention and treatment of diseases: case study on HIV/AIDS," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Giuseppina Migliore & Giuseppina Rizzo & Giorgio Schifani & Giuseppe Quatrosi & Luigi Vetri & Riccardo Testa, 2021. "Ethnocentrism Effects on Consumers’ Behavior during COVID-19 Pandemic," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, October.
    7. Hausken, Kjell & Ncube, Mthuli, 2015. "Policy-Makers, the International Community and People Living with HIV: The Need for New Commitment Mechanisms," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2015/6, University of Stavanger.
    8. Alexander Bick & Adam Blandin & Aidan Caplan & Tristan Caplan, 2024. "Measuring Trends in Work From Home: Evidence from Six U.S. Datasets," Working Papers 2024-023, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, revised 12 Dec 2024.
    9. Aldea Anamaria Beatrice, 2024. "Times of Change: Young Adults' Perceptions on Labour Market Issues Before and During the Pandemic," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 18(1), pages 1348-1362.
    10. Alessandra Casarico & Salvatore Lattanzio, 2022. "The heterogeneous effects of COVID-19 on labor market flows: evidence from administrative data," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(3), pages 537-558, September.
    11. Thomas F Crossley & Paul Fisher & Hamish Low & Peter Levell, 2023. "A year of COVID: the evolution of labour market and financial inequalities through the crisis," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(3), pages 589-612.
    12. Aditya Goenka & Lin Liu & Manh-Hung Nguyen, 2021. "Modeling optimal quarantines with waning immunity," Discussion Papers 21-10, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    13. Margaret K. Kyle, 2020. "The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 95-123.
    14. Hai-Anh Dang & Toan L.D. Huynh & Manh-Hung Nguyen, 2023. "Does the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affect the poor? Evidence from a six-country survey," Journal of Economics and Development, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(1), pages 2-18, December.
    15. Rikard Forslid & Mathias Herzing, 2015. "On the Optimal Production Capacity for Influenza Vaccine," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 726-741, June.
    16. Michael Kremer & Christopher M. Snyder, 2015. "Preventives Versus Treatments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1167-1239.
    17. Upali Deb & Rudra Narayan Gupta & Chayan Basu & Mousumi Dutta & Zakir Husain, 2024. "Stalled Progress? Evidence from American Time Use Data on Gender Differences in Time Spent on Economic Activities," The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Springer;The Indian Society of Labour Economics (ISLE), vol. 67(3), pages 681-708, September.
    18. Kremer, Michael, 2018. "Worst-Case Bounds on R&D and Pricing Distortions: Theory and Disturbing Conclusions if Consumer Values Follow the World Income," CEPR Discussion Papers 13241, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. 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.
    20. Andrew Clark & Conchita D'Ambrosio & Anthony Lepinteur & Giorgia Menta, 2022. "Pandemic Policy and Individual Income Changes across Europe," Working Papers 600, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.

    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:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:5:p:571-586. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.