IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/20878.html

The Local Influence of Pioneer Investigators on Technology Adoption: Evidence from New Cancer Drugs

Author

Listed:
  • Leila Agha
  • David Molitor

Abstract

Local opinion leaders may play a key role in easing information frictions associated with technology adoption. This paper analyzes the influence of physician investigators who lead clinical trials for new cancer drugs. By comparing diffusion patterns across 21 new cancer drugs, we separate correlated regional demand for new technology from information spillovers. Patients in the lead investigator's region are initially 36% more likely to receive the new drug, but utilization converges within four years. We also find that “superstar ” physician authors, measured by trial role or citation history, have broader influence than less prominent authors.

Suggested Citation

  • Leila Agha & David Molitor, 2015. "The Local Influence of Pioneer Investigators on Technology Adoption: Evidence from New Cancer Drugs," NBER Working Papers 20878, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:20878
    Note: EH PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20878.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amitabh Chandra & Douglas O. Staiger, 2007. "Productivity Spillovers in Health Care: Evidence from the Treatment of Heart Attacks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(1), pages 103-140.
    2. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2011. "The Diffusion of Scientific Knowledge across Time and Space: Evidence from Professional Transitions for the Superstars of Medicine," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, pages 107-155, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Escarce, JoseJ., 1996. "Externalities in hospitals and physician adoption of a new surgical technology: An exploratory analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 715-734, December.
    4. Joseph P. Newhouse, 1992. "Medical Care Costs: How Much Welfare Loss?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 3-21, Summer.
    5. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    6. Diego A. Comin & Mikhail Dmitriev & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2012. "The Spatial Diffusion of Technology," NBER Working Papers 18534, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Jonathan Skinner & Douglas Staiger, 2007. "Technology Adoption from Hybrid Corn to Beta-Blockers," NBER Chapters, in: Hard-to-Measure Goods and Services: Essays in Honor of Zvi Griliches, pages 545-570, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Maynou, L. & McGuire, A. & Serra-Sastre, V., 2024. "What happens when the tasks dry up? Exploring the impact of medical technology on workforce planning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 352(C).
    2. Anne E. Hall, 2015. "Regional Patterns in Medical Technology Utilization," BEA Working Papers 0126, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    3. Huesch, Marco D., 2011. "Is blood thicker than water? Peer effects in stent utilization among Floridian cardiologists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(12), pages 1756-1765.
    4. Keith Head & Yao Amber Li & Asier Minondo, 2019. "Geography, Ties, and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(4), pages 713-727, October.
    5. Diemer, Andreas & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "No inventor is an island: Social connectedness and the geography of knowledge flows in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    6. Karine Lamiraud & Stephane Lhuillery, 2016. "Endogenous Technology Adoption and Medical Costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(9), pages 1123-1147, September.
    7. Freedman, Seth & Lin, Haizhen & Simon, Kosali, 2015. "Public health insurance expansions and hospital technology adoption," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-131.
    8. Contreras Juan & Patel Elena & Tristao Ignez, 2013. "Production Factors, Productivity Dynamics and Quality Gains as Determinants of Healthcare Spending Growth in U.S. Hospitals," Working Papers 2013-13, Banco de México.
    9. Ina Ganguli, 2015. "Immigration and Ideas: What Did Russian Scientists "Bring" to the United States?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(S1), pages 257-288.
    10. Jens Ruhose, 2015. "Microeconometric Analyses on Economic Consequences of Selective Migration," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 61, September.
    11. Horn, Danea & Sacarny, Adam & Zhou, Annetta, 2022. "Technology adoption and market allocation: The case of robotic surgery," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    12. Comin, Diego & Mestieri, Martí, 2014. "Technology Diffusion: Measurement, Causes, and Consequences," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 2, pages 565-622, Elsevier.
    13. Cutler, David M., 2007. "The lifetime costs and benefits of medical technology," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1081-1100, December.
    14. Vincenzo Atella & Joanna Kopinska, 2018. "New Technologies and Costs," CEIS Research Paper 442, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 09 Aug 2018.
    15. Nick Pantaleo & Finn Poschmann & Scott Wilkie, 2013. "Improving the Tax Treatment of Intellectual Property Income in Canada," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 379, April.
    16. Mickael Bech & Terkel Christiansen & Kelly Dunham & Jørgen Lauridsen & Carl Hampus Lyttkens & Kathryn McDonald & Alistair McGuire & and the TECH Investigators, 2009. "The influence of economic incentives and regulatory factors on the adoption of treatment technologies: a case study of technologies used to treat heart attacks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1114-1132, October.
    17. Liu, Ya-Ming & Kao Yang, Yea-Huei & Hsieh, Chee-Ruey, 2011. "The determinants of the adoption of pharmaceutical innovation: Evidence from Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(6), pages 919-927, March.
    18. Shigeru SUGIHARA & Hiroki ICHIMIYA & Tomohiko INUI & Yukiko ITO & Yukiko SAITO & Isao IGARASHI & Koichi KAWABUCHI, 2016. "How do Hospitals Adopt Advanced Treatment Techniques? An assessment through the records of AMI patients in Japan," Discussion papers 16035, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    19. Azagra-Caro, Joaquín M. & Barberá-Tomás, David & Edwards-Schachter, Mónica & Tur, Elena M., 2017. "Dynamic interactions between university-industry knowledge transfer channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic patent," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 463-474.
    20. Malgorzata Wachowska, 2018. "Cluster as place of efficient diffusion of knowledge. Experiences of Lower Silesia," Managerial Economics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 19(2), pages 227-249.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:nbr:nberwo:20878. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.