IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fsu/wpaper/wp2009_05_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Entry in the ADHD drugs market: Welfare impact of generics and me-toos

Author

Listed:
  • Farasat A.S. Bokhari

    () (Department of Economics, Florida State University)

  • Gary M. Fournier

    () (Department of Economics, Florida State University)

Abstract

Recent years have seen the growing popularity of drugs designed to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and the number of patients, scripts, and revenues has been steadily increasing. By the mid-1990s there were already several branded drugs marketed for this disorder, as well as numerous generic formulations. With the expansion of the market in the late 1990s and early 2000s, new formulations (the so called `me-too' drugs) entered and caused dramatic changes in the distribution of market shares among available drugs. Using detailed sales data on psychostimulant drugs used to treat ADHD, we are able to identify and measure substitution patterns across a range of drugs. We find that the demand for ADHD drugs is fairly elastic and there are significant substitution possibilities among these drugs. Using estimates from demand parameters, we show that the first-time introduction of a generic drug can have large welfare gains due to the expansion of the market to price sensitive consumers. Additionally, the welfare gains due to the introduction of me-too drugs vary by the novelty of the drug, and for significantly new varieties can be larger than those of the introduction of a generic. Our results bear policy implications for both the speed with which new drugs are approved for marketing as well as for actions among pharmaceutical firms that may delay the entry of a generic drug.

Suggested Citation

  • Farasat A.S. Bokhari & Gary M. Fournier, 2009. "Entry in the ADHD drugs market: Welfare impact of generics and me-toos," Working Papers wp2009_05_01, Department of Economics, Florida State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:fsu:wpaper:wp2009_05_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1401546
    File Function: First version, 2009-05
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Figlio, David N., 2006. "Testing, crime and punishment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, pages 837-851.
    2. Eric A. Hanushek & Margaret E. Raymond, 2005. "Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2), pages 297-327.
    3. Julie Berry Cullen & Randall Reback, 2006. "Tinkering Toward Accolades: School Gaming Under a Performance Accountability System," NBER Working Papers 12286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Reback, Randall, 2008. "Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1394-1415, June.
    5. Farasat A. S. Bokhari & Gary M. Fournier, 2013. "Entry in the ADHD drugs market: Welfare impact of generics and me-too's," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 339-392, June.
    6. Jacob, Brian A., 2005. "Accountability, incentives and behavior: the impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 761-796, June.
    7. Anna Aizer, 2008. "Peer Effects and Human Capital Accumulation: the Externalities of ADD," NBER Working Papers 14354, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Figlio, David N. & Winicki, Joshua, 2005. "Food for thought: the effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, pages 381-394.
    9. Edward P. Lazear, 2001. "Educational Production," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(3), pages 777-803.
    10. Daniel M. Koretz, 2002. "Limitations in the Use of Achievement Tests as Measures of Educators' Productivity," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 752-777.
    11. Thomas Dee & Brian Jacob, 2009. "The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement," NBER Working Papers 15531, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Derek Neal & Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, 2007. "Left Behind By Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability," NBER Working Papers 13293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Lee Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew J. Higgins, 2014. "Starving (or Fattening) the Golden Goose?: Generic Entry and the Incentives for Early-Stage Pharmaceutical Innovation," NBER Working Papers 20532, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Lee G. Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew Higgins, 2011. "Regulation and Welfare: Evidence from Paragraph IV Generic Entry in the Pharmaceutical Industry," NBER Working Papers 17188, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Bokhari, Farasat A.S. & Schneider, Helen, 2011. "School accountability laws and the consumption of psychostimulants," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 355-372, March.
    4. Gilad Sorek, 2015. "Health Insurance and Competition in Health Care Markets," Auburn Economics Working Paper Series auwp2015-03, Department of Economics, Auburn University.
    5. 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.
    6. Tomaso Duso & Annika Herr & Moritz Suppliet, 2014. "The Welfare Impact Of Parallel Imports: A Structural Approach Applied To The German Market For Oral Anti‐Diabetics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1036-1057, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Differentiated products demand; multistage budgeting; AIDS model; psychostimulant drugs; new introductions; welfare analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General

    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:fsu:wpaper:wp2009_05_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dmitry Ryvkin). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/defsuus.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.