IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/eipoec/doi10.1086-723235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Generic Drug Trilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel J. Hemel
  • Lisa Larrimore Ouellette

Abstract

More than 90% of prescriptions dispensed in the United States each year are for off-patent drugs. Yet the bulk of scholarship on prescription drug policy focuses on patented drugs. Discussions of prescription drugs are typically oriented around the “innovation-access dilemma”—the trade-off between stronger patent-based incentives for innovators and higher prices for purchasers of patented products. But for drugs in the “patent afterlife”—the period after patent protection and other forms of market exclusivity have expired—the innovation-access dilemma is not the fundamental policy trade-off. Higher prices do not necessarily redound to the benefit of innovators, and price is not the only significant impediment to access: drug shortages—often triggered by safety concerns—also prevent patients from obtaining the medicines they need.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel J. Hemel & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, 2023. "The Generic Drug Trilemma," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 41-77.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:eipoec:doi:10.1086/723235
    DOI: 10.1086/723235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/723235
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/723235
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/723235?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. Jeffrey B. Liebman & Neale Mahoney, 2017. "Do Expiring Budgets Lead to Wasteful Year-End Spending? Evidence from Federal Procurement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3510-3549, November.
    2. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    3. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    4. Congressional Budget Office, 2021. "A Comparison of Brand-Name Drug Prices Among Selected Federal Programs," Reports 56978, Congressional Budget Office.
    5. Duflos, Gautier & Lichtenberg, Frank R., 2012. "Does competition stimulate drug utilization? The impact of changes in market structure on US drug prices, marketing and utilization," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 95-109.
    6. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    7. Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas Philipson, 2012. "Does Intellectual Property Restrict Output? An Analysis of Pharmaceutical Markets," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(1), pages 151-187.
    8. Jin Xie & Joseph Gerakos, 2020. "The Anticompetitive Effects of Common Ownership: The Case of Paragraph IV Generic Entry," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 110, pages 569-572, May.
    9. Yin, Wesley, 2008. "Market incentives and pharmaceutical innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1060-1077, July.
    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. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    2. Kyle, Margaret K., 2022. "Incentives for pharmaceutical innovation: What’s working, what’s lacking," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Kalcheva, Ivalina & McLemore, Ping & Pant, Shagun, 2018. "Innovation: The interplay between demand-side shock and supply-side environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 440-461.
    4. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2020. "Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination," NBER Working Papers 27579, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Gamba, Simona & Magazzini, Laura & Pertile, Paolo, 2021. "R&D and market size: Who benefits from orphan drug legislation?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Anthony Bald & Eric Chyn & Justine Hastings & Margarita Machelett, 2022. "The Causal Impact of Removing Children from Abusive and Neglectful Homes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(7), pages 1919-1962.
    7. Castanheira, Micael & Ornaghi, Carmine & Siotis, Georges, 2019. "The unexpected consequences of generic entry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    8. Iizuka, Toshiaki & Uchida, Gyo, 2017. "Promoting innovation in small markets: Evidence from the market for rare and intractable diseases," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 56-65.
    9. Wang, Lucy Xiaolu, 2022. "Global drug diffusion and innovation with the medicines patent pool," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Tedi Skiti, 2020. "Institutional entry barriers and spatial technology diffusion: Evidence from the broadband industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1336-1361, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Kortelainen, Mika & Markkanen, Jaakko & Siikanen, Markku & Toivanen, Otto, 2023. "The Effects of Price Regulation on Pharmaceutical Expenditure and Availability," Working Papers 157, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Leila Agha & Soomi Kim & Danielle Li, 2020. "Insurance Design and Pharmaceutical Innovation," NBER Working Papers 27563, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Agarwal, Ruchir & Gaule, Patrick, 2022. "What drives innovation? Lessons from COVID-19 R&D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    15. Margaret K. Kyle, 2019. "The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 20, pages 95-123, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Bhattacharya, Jay & Packalen, Mikko, 2011. "Opportunities and benefits as determinants of the direction of scientific research," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 603-615, July.
    17. Eric Helland & Seth A. Seabury, 2016. "Are Settlements in Patent Litigation Collusive? Evidence from Paragraph IV Challenges," NBER Working Papers 22194, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2019. "How Many Life-Years Have New Drugs Saved? A 3-Way Fixed-Effects Analysis of 66 Diseases in 27 Countries, 2000-2013," NBER Working Papers 25483, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Rajashri Chakrabarti & Maxim Pinkovskiy, 2019. "The Affordable Care Act and the Market for Higher Education," CESifo Working Paper Series 7869, CESifo.
    20. Jeffrey P. Clemens & Parker Rogers, 2020. "Demand Shocks, Procurement Policies, and the Nature of Medical Innovation: Evidence from Wartime Prosthetic Device Patents," CESifo Working Paper Series 8781, CESifo.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law

    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:ucp:eipoec:doi:10.1086/723235. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/EIPE .

    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.