IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v24y2015i7p859-875.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of FDA Actions, DTCA, and Public Information on the Market for Pain Medication

Author

Listed:
  • W. David Bradford
  • Andrew N. Kleit

Abstract

Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most important classes of prescription drugs used by primary care physicians to manage pain. The NSAID class of products has a somewhat controversial history, around which a complex regulatory and informational environment has developed. This history includes a boxed warning mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for all NSAIDs in 2005. We investigate the impact that various information shocks have had on the use of prescription medications for pain in primary care in the USA. We accomplish this by extracting data on nearly 600 000 patients from a unique nationwide electronic medical record database and estimate the probability of any active prescription for the four types of pain medications as a function of FDA actions, advertising, media coverage, and patient characteristics. We find that even after accounting for multiple sources of information, the FDA label changes and boxed warnings had a significant effect on pain medication prescribing. The boxed warning did not have the same impact on the use of all NSAID inhibitors. We find that the boxed warning reduced the use of NSAID COX‐2 inhibitor use, which was the focus of much of the press attention. In contrast, however, the warning actually increased the use of non‐COX‐2 NSAID inhibitors. Thus, the efficacy of the FDA's black box warning is clearly mixed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • W. David Bradford & Andrew N. Kleit, 2015. "Impact of FDA Actions, DTCA, and Public Information on the Market for Pain Medication," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 859-875, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:24:y:2015:i:7:p:859-875
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3067
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3067?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. Keith, Alison, 1995. "Regulating Information about Aspirin and the Prevention of Heart Attack," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 96-99, May.
    2. Brekke, Kurt R. & Kuhn, Michael, 2006. "Direct to consumer advertising in pharmaceutical markets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 102-130, January.
    3. W. David Bradford & Andrew N. Kleit, 2011. "Can Credence Advertising Effects Be Isolated? Can They Be Negative?: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(1), pages 167-190, July.
    4. Puneet Manchanda & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2004. "Responsiveness of Physician Prescription Behavior to Salesforce Effort: An Individual Level Analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(2_3), pages 129-145, July.
    5. W. David Bradford & Andrew N. Kleit & Paul J. Nietert & Steven Ornstein, 2010. "The Effect Of Direct To Consumer Television Advertising On The Timing Of Treatment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(2), pages 306-322, April.
    6. Natalie Mizik & Robert Jacobson, 2004. "Are Physicians ÜEasy MarksÝ? Quantifying the Effects of Detailing and Sampling on New Prescriptions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1704-1715, December.
    7. John E. Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2002. "Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and the Demand for Cholesterol-Reducing Drugs," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(S2), pages 673-690.
    8. Mary K. Olson, 2002. "Pharmaceutical Policy Change and the Safety of New Drugs," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(S2), pages 615-642.
    9. Pierre Azoulay, 2002. "Do Pharmaceutical Sales Respond to Scientific Evidence?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 551-594, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katharina E. Blankart & Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2020. "Are patients more adherent to newer drugs?," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 605-618, December.
    2. Mary K. Olson & Nina Yin, 2021. "New clinical information and physician prescribing: How do pediatric labeling changes affect prescribing to children?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 144-164, January.
    3. 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.

    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. W. David Bradford & Andrew N. Kleit, 2012. "Direct to Consumer Advertising for Pharmaceuticals: Research Amid the Controversy," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 31, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. 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.
    3. Dhaval M. Dave, 2013. "Effects of Pharmaceutical Promotion: A Review and Assessment," NBER Working Papers 18830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. 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.
    5. Suppliet, Moritz, 2020. "Umbrella branding in pharmaceutical markets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    6. Anusua Datta & Dhaval Dave, 2017. "Effects of Physician‐directed Pharmaceutical Promotion on Prescription Behaviors: Longitudinal Evidence," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(4), pages 450-468, April.
    7. Matthew Ryan & Rhema Vaithianathan, 2015. "The Regulation of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals in a Managed Care Setting," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(6), pages 986-1021, December.
    8. Guy David & Sara Markowitz & Seth Richards-Shubik, 2010. "The Effects of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Promotion on Adverse Drug Events and Regulation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 1-25, November.
    9. Guy David & Sara Markowitz, 2011. "Side Effects of Competition: the Role of Advertising and Promotion in Pharmaceutical Markets," NBER Working Papers 17162, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. 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.
    11. Castanheira, Micael & Ornaghi, Carmine & Siotis, Georges, 2019. "The unexpected consequences of generic entry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    12. Christopher Ody & Matt Schmitt, 2019. "Who cares about a label? The effect of pediatric labeling changes on prescription drug utilization," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 419-447, December.
    13. W. David Bradford & Andrew N. Kleit & Paul J. Nietert & Steven Ornstein, 2010. "The Effect Of Direct To Consumer Television Advertising On The Timing Of Treatment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(2), pages 306-322, April.
    14. Brekke, Kurt R. & Kuhn, Michael, 2006. "Direct to consumer advertising in pharmaceutical markets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 102-130, January.
    15. Marc Fischer & Hyun S. Shin & Dominique M. Hanssens, 2016. "Brand Performance Volatility from Marketing Spending," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 197-215, January.
    16. Andrew T. Ching & Robert Clark & Ignatius Horstmann & Hyunwoo Lim, 2016. "The Effects of Publicity on Demand: The Case of Anti-Cholesterol Drugs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 158-181, January.
    17. Carey, Colleen & Lieber, Ethan M.J. & Miller, Sarah, 2021. "Drug firms’ payments and physicians’ prescribing behavior in Medicare Part D," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    18. Ramkumar Janakiraman & Shantanu Dutta & Catarina Sismeiro & Philip Stern, 2008. "Physicians' Persistence and Its Implications for Their Response to Promotion of Prescription Drugs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(6), pages 1080-1093, June.
    19. Stremersch, S. & Lemmens, A., 2008. "Sales Growth of New Pharmaceuticals Across the Globe: The Role of Regulatory Regimes," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-026-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.
    20. Sood, Ashish & Kappe, Eelco & Stremersch, Stefan, 2014. "The commercial contribution of clinical studies for pharmaceutical drugs," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 65-77.

    More about this item

    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:wly:hlthec:v:24:y:2015:i:7:p:859-875. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.