IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2509.16125.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Pays, Who Benefits? Producer-Insurer Games in Life-Saving Medicines

Author

Listed:
  • Delia Coculescu
  • Maximilian Janisch
  • Thomas Leh'ericy

Abstract

Pharmaceutical markets for life-saving therapies combine monopoly power with insurance coverage. We build a tractable sequential game in which a patent-holder chooses the drug price, a profit-maximising insurer sets its premium, and a population of heterogeneous agents decide whether to insure and, conditional on diagnosis, whether to purchase treatment. Two sufficient statistics - subjective illness probability and reservation price - capture heterogeneity and nest risk-aversion and liquidity-constraint motives within a unified framework. We prove existence of subgame-perfect Nash equilibria and show that entry of an insurer strictly raises producer profits but may raise or lower both drug prices and treatment uptake, depending on the joint distribution of the population statistics. Numerical experiments calibrated to flexible parametric families illustrate non-monotone comparative statics and quantify conditions under which insurance reduces access. Our results provide benchmarks for evaluating price negotiations, price caps, and subsidy schemes in high-cost drug markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Delia Coculescu & Maximilian Janisch & Thomas Leh'ericy, 2025. "Who Pays, Who Benefits? Producer-Insurer Games in Life-Saving Medicines," Papers 2509.16125, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2509.16125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.16125
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David H. Howard & Peter B. Bach & Ernst R. Berndt & Rena M. Conti, 2015. "Pricing in the Market for Anticancer Drugs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 139-162, Winter.
    2. Mark Duggan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2010. "The Effect of Medicare Part D on Pharmaceutical Prices and Utilization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 590-607, March.
    3. Pierre Dubois & Olivier de Mouzon & Fiona Scott-Morton & Paul Seabright, 2015. "Market size and pharmaceutical innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 844-871, October.
    4. Joseph S. Pliskin & Donald S. Shepard & Milton C. Weinstein, 1980. "Utility Functions for Life Years and Health Status," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 206-224, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Maria Polyakova, 2018. "Private Provision of Social Insurance: Drug-Specific Price Elasticities and Cost Sharing in Medicare Part D," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 122-153, August.
    7. Martin Gaynor & Kate Ho & Robert J. Town, 2015. "The Industrial Organization of Health-Care Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 235-284, June.
    8. Besanko, David & Dranove, David & Garthwaite, Craig, 2020. "Insurance access and demand response: Pricing and welfare implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    9. Lakdawalla, Darius & Sood, Neeraj, 2009. "Innovation and the welfare effects of public drug insurance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(3-4), pages 541-548, April.
    10. Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2013. "Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 172-180.
    11. Kevin M. Murphy & Robert H. Topel, 2006. "The Value of Health and Longevity," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(5), pages 871-904, October.
    12. Matthew Grennan, 2013. "Price Discrimination and Bargaining: Empirical Evidence from Medical Devices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 145-177, February.
    13. Nyman, John A., 1999. "The value of health insurance: the access motive," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-152, April.
    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. Kamphorst, Jurjen & Karamychev, Vladimir A., 2025. "Going through the roof: On prices for drugs sold through insurance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 218-242.
    2. Kortelainen, Mika & Markkanen, Jaakko & Toivanen, Otto & Siikanen, Markku, 2023. "The Effects of Price Regulation on Pharmaceutical Expenditure and Availability," CEPR Discussion Papers 18497, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Böhm, Sebastian & Grossmann, Volker & Strulik, Holger, 2021. "R&D-driven medical progress, health care costs, and the future of human longevity," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    4. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    5. Pierre Dubois & Morten Sæthre, 2020. "On the Effect of Parallel Trade on Manufacturers' and Retailers' Profits in the Pharmaceutical Sector," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(6), pages 2503-2545, November.
    6. Fiona M. Scott Morton & Ariel Dora Stern & Scott Stern, 2018. "The Impact of the Entry of Biosimilars: Evidence from Europe," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(1), pages 173-210, August.
    7. Leila Agha & Soomi Kim & Danielle Li, 2022. "Insurance Design and Pharmaceutical Innovation," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 191-208, June.
    8. Boone, Jan, 2020. "Pricing above Value: Selling to an Adverse Selection Market," Discussion Paper 2020-023, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Boone, Jan, 2020. "Pricing above Value: Selling to an Adverse Selection Market," Other publications TiSEM 700b2f3e-d1c8-4422-9b54-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Hermosilla, Manuel & Wu, Yufei, 2018. "Market size and innovation: The intermediary role of technology licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 980-991.
    11. Boone, Jan, 2013. "Does the market choose optimal health insurance coverage?," CEPR Discussion Papers 9420, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Dubois, Pierre, 2025. "Pharmaceutical Regulation and Incentives for Innovation in an International Perspective," TSE Working Papers 25-1674, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    13. Boone, J., 2013. "Does the Market Choose Optimal Health Insurance Coverage," Other publications TiSEM f7691fbf-f770-4714-b1b4-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Amitabh Chandra & Jonathan Skinner, 2012. "Technology Growth and Expenditure Growth in Health Care," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(3), pages 645-680, September.
    15. Dubois, Pierre & Gandhi, Ashvin & Vasserman, Shoshana, 2022. "Bargaining and International Reference Pricing in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Research Papers 3889, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    16. Hermosilla, Manuel, 2024. "Regulating ethical experimentation: Impacts of the breakthrough therapy designation on drug R&D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. David Besanko & David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite, 2016. "Insurance and the High Prices of Pharmaceuticals," NBER Working Papers 22353, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. David B. Ridley & Chung-Ying Lee, 2020. "Does Medicare Reimbursement Drive Up Drug Launch Prices?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(5), pages 980-993, December.
    19. Branstetter, Lee G. & Kwon, Namho, 2018. "South Korea's transition from imitator to innovator: The role of external demand shocks," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 28-42.
    20. Blume-Kohout, Margaret E. & Sood, Neeraj, 2013. "Market size and innovation: Effects of Medicare Part D on pharmaceutical research and development," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 327-336.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2509.16125. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.