IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/20981.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Regulating Innovation with Uncertain Quality: Information, Risk, and Access in Medical Devices

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Grennan
  • Robert Town

Abstract

We study the impact of regulating product entry and quality information requirements on an oligopoly equilibrium and consumer welfare. Product testing can reduce consumer uncertainty, but also increase entry costs and delay entry. Using variation between EU and US medical device regulations, we document patterns consistent with valuable learning from more stringent US requirements. To derive welfare implications, we pair the data with a model of supply, demand, and testing regulation. US policy is indistinguishable from the policy that maximizes total surplus in our estimated model, while the EU could benefit from more testing. “Post-market surveillance” could further increase surplus.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Grennan & Robert Town, 2015. "Regulating Innovation with Uncertain Quality: Information, Risk, and Access in Medical Devices," NBER Working Papers 20981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:20981
    Note: EH IO
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20981.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kate Ho & Robin S. Lee, 2019. "Equilibrium Provider Networks: Bargaining and Exclusion in Health Care Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(2), pages 473-522, February.
    2. Train, Kenneth, 2015. "Welfare calculations in discrete choice models when anticipated and experienced attributes differ: A guide with examples," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 15-22.
    3. Emir Kamenica & Matthew Gentzkow, 2011. "Bayesian Persuasion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2590-2615, October.
    4. Miravete, Eugenio & Seim, Katja & Thurk, Jeff, 2013. "Complexity, Efficiency, and Fairness of Multi-Product Monopoly Pricing," CEPR Discussion Papers 9641, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Thomas W. Quan & Kevin R. Williams, 2018. "Product variety, across‐market demand heterogeneity, and the value of online retail," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(4), pages 877-913, December.
    6. Luis Aguiar & Joel Waldfogel, 2018. "Quality Predictability and the Welfare Benefits from New Products: Evidence from the Digitization of Recorded Music," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 492-524.
    7. Christopher Timmins, 2002. "Measuring the Dynamic Efficiency Costs of Regulators' Preferences: Municipal Water Utilities in the Arid West," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 603-629, March.
    8. Eugenio J. Miravete & Katja Seim & Jeff Thurk, 2020. "One Markup to Rule Them All: Taxation by Liquor Pricing Regulation," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-41, February.
    9. John H. Roberts & Glen L. Urban, 1988. "Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 167-185, February.
    10. Darren Filson, 2012. "A Markov‐perfect equilibrium model of the impacts of price controls on the performance of the pharmaceutical industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 110-138, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    13. Alma Cohen & Liran Einav, 2007. "Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 745-788, June.
    14. Cardon, James H & Hendel, Igal, 2001. "Asymmetric Information in Health Insurance: Evidence from the National Medical Expenditure Survey," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(3), pages 408-427, Autumn.
    15. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Invited Paper ---Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges, and New Developments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 913-938, November.
    16. David Dranove & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2010. "Quality Disclosure and Certification: Theory and Practice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 935-963, December.
    17. Andrew T. Ching, 2010. "A Dynamic Oligopoly Structural Model For The Prescription Drug Market After Patent Expiration," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1175-1207, November.
    18. Eugenio J. Miravete & Katja Seim & Jeff Thurk, 2018. "Market Power and the Laffer Curve," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1651-1687, September.
    19. Gregory S. Crawford & Matthew Shum, 2005. "Uncertainty and Learning in Pharmaceutical Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1137-1173, July.
    20. Cardell, N. Scott, 1997. "Variance Components Structures for the Extreme-Value and Logistic Distributions with Application to Models of Heterogeneity," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 185-213, April.
    21. Barton H. Hamilton & Emily Jungheim & Brian McManus & Juan Pantano, 2018. "Health Care Access, Costs, and Treatment Dynamics: Evidence from In Vitro Fertilization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3725-3777, December.
    22. Daniel A. Ackerberg, 2003. "Advertising, learning, and consumer choice in experience good markets: an empirical examination," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1007-1040, August.
    23. Sorenson, Corinna & Kanavos, Panos, 2011. "Medical technology procurement in Europe: A cross-country comparison of current practice and policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 43-50, April.
    24. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges and New Developments," Economics Papers 2013-W07, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    25. 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.
    26. Amit Gandhi Gandhi & Zhentong Lu & Xiaoxia Shi, 2013. "Estimating demand for differentiated products with error in market shares," CeMMAP working papers CWP03/13, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    27. Eric Budish & Benjamin N. Roin & Heidi Williams, 2015. "Do Firms Underinvest in Long-Term Research? Evidence from Cancer Clinical Trials," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2044-2085, July.
    28. 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.
    29. Stern, Ariel Dora, 2017. "Innovation under regulatory uncertainty: Evidence from medical technology," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 181-200.
    30. Olson, Mary K., 2008. "The risk we bear: The effects of review speed and industry user fees on new drug safety," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 175-200, March.
    31. Thomas W. Quan & Kevin R. Williams, 2016. "Product Variety, Across-Market Demand Heterogeneity, and the Value of Online Retail," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2054, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    32. Philipson, Tomas & Berndt, Ernst R. & Gottschalk, Adrian H.B. & Sun, Eric, 2008. "Cost-benefit analysis of the FDA: The case of the prescription drug user fee acts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1306-1325, June.
    33. Jonas Schreyögg & Tom Stargardt & Oliver Tiemann & Reinhard Busse, 2006. "Methods to determine reimbursement rates for diagnosis related groups (DRG): A comparison of nine European countries," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 215-223, August.
    34. Bhaven N. Sampat, 2018. "A Survey of Empirical Evidence on Patents and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 25383, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    35. Henrick Horn & Asher Wolinsky, 1988. "Bilateral Monopolies and Incentives for Merger," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 408-419, Autumn.
    36. Henry Grabowski & Y. Richard Wang, 2008. "Do Faster Food and Drug Administration Drug Reviews Adversely Affect Patient Safety? An Analysis of the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(2), pages 377-406, May.
    37. Steven T. Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 1999. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency in Radio Broadcasting," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(3), pages 397-420, Autumn.
    38. Bar Ifrach & Gabriel Y. Weintraub, 2017. "A Framework for Dynamic Oligopoly in Concentrated Industries," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(3), pages 1106-1150.
    39. Matthew Grennan, 2014. "Bargaining Ability and Competitive Advantage: Empirical Evidence from Medical Devices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3011-3025, December.
    40. Katja Seim & Joel Waldfogel, 2013. "Public Monopoly and Economic Efficiency: Evidence from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's Entry Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 831-862, April.
    41. Thomas W. Quan & Kevin R. Williams, 2017. "Product Variety, Across-Market Demand Heterogeneity, and the Value of Online Retail," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2054R3, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jun 2018.
    42. Amil Petrin, 2002. "Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 705-729, August.
    43. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    44. Peltzman, Sam, 1973. "An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(5), pages 1049-1091, Sept.-Oct.
    45. Margaret K. Kyle, 2007. "Pharmaceutical Price Controls and Entry Strategies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(1), pages 88-99, February.
    46. Benjamin R. Handel, 2013. "Adverse Selection and Inertia in Health Insurance Markets: When Nudging Hurts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2643-2682, December.
    47. A. Michael Spence, 1975. "Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 417-429, Autumn.
    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. Sun, Eric & Ferguson, Kelly, 2016. "Effects of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act on FDA Review Times for Medical Devices," Working Papers 06879, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    2. Bucciol, Alessandro & Camboni, Riccardo & Valbonesi, Paola, 2020. "Purchasing medical devices: The role of buyer competence and discretion," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Galasso, Alberto & Luo, Hong, 2018. "How does product liability risk affect innovation? Evidence from medical implants," CEPR Discussion Papers 13036, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Tuncel, Tuba, 2022. "Should We Prevent Off-Label Drug Prescriptions? Empirical Evidence from France," TSE Working Papers 22-1383, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. McKibbin, Rebecca, 2023. "The effect of RCTs on drug demand: Evidence from off-label cancer drugs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Alberto Galasso & Hong Luo, 2018. "When does Product Liability Risk Chill Innovation? Evidence from Medical Implants," NBER Working Papers 25068, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Shatrov, Kosta & Blankart, Carl Rudolf, 2022. "After the four-year transition period: Is the European Union's Medical Device Regulation of 2017 likely to achieve its main goals?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(12), pages 1233-1240.
    8. Galasso, Alberto & Luo, Hong, 2016. "Tort Reform and Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11358, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Gaurab Aryal & Federico Ciliberto & Leland E. Farmer & Ekaterina Khmelnitskaya, 2022. "Valuing Pharmaceutical Drug Innovations," Papers 2212.07384, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    10. Zhou, Jiehong & Jin, Yu & Liang, Qiao, 2022. "Effects of regulatory policy mixes on traceability adoption in wholesale markets: Food safety inspection and information disclosure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Zhou, Jiehong & Jin, Yu & Liang, Qiao, 2021. "Quality inspection, information disclosure and wholesale vendors’ traceability adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313943, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Alberto Galasso & Hong Luo, 2016. "Tort Reform and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 22712, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. Jie Bai, 2016. "Melons as Lemons: Asymmetric Information, Consumer Learning and Seller Reputation," Natural Field Experiments 00540, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ching, Andrew T. & Erdem, Tülin & Keane, Michael P., 2014. "A simple method to estimate the roles of learning, inventories and category consideration in consumer choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 60-72.
    5. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Limin Fang, 2022. "The Effects of Online Review Platforms on Restaurant Revenue, Consumer Learning, and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8116-8143, November.
    7. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2021. "Foundations of Demand Estimation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2301, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    8. Xu, Yan, 2017. "Essays on preference formation and home production," Other publications TiSEM b028fd7e-53ba-4ff6-97eb-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Donna, Javier D. & Pereira, Pedro & Trindade, Andre & Yoshida, Renan C., 2020. "Direct-to-Consumer Sales by Manufacturers and Bargaining," MPRA Paper 105773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Guofang Huang & Hong Luo & Jing Xia, 2019. "Invest in Information or Wing It? A Model of Dynamic Pricing with Seller Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5556-5583, December.
    11. Thomas W. Quan & Kevin R. Williams, 2016. "Product Variety, Across-Market Demand Heterogeneity, and the Value of Online Retail," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2054, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    12. Hai Che & Tülin Erdem & T. Sabri Öncü, 2015. "Consumer learning and evolution of consumer brand preferences," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 173-202, September.
    13. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges and New Developments," Economics Papers 2013-W07, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    14. Brian Adams & Kevin R. Williams, 2019. "Zone Pricing in Retail Oligopoly," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 124-156, February.
    15. Thomas W. Quan & Kevin R. Williams, 2017. "Product Variety, Across-Market Demand Heterogeneity, and the Value of Online Retail," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2054R3, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jun 2018.
    16. Mary Olson, 2013. "Eliminating the U.S. drug lag: Implications for drug safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-30, August.
    17. Mariuzzo, Franco & Walsh, Patrick Paul & Whelan, Ciara, 2010. "Coverage of retail stores and discrete choice models of demand: Estimating price elasticities and welfare effects," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 555-578, September.
    18. Lee Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew J. Higgins, 2016. "Regulation and welfare: evidence from paragraph IV generic entry in the pharmaceutical industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 857-890, November.
    19. Vineet Kumar & Yacheng Sun, 2020. "Designing Pricing Strategy for Operational and Technological Transformation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2706-2734, June.
    20. Luis Aguiar & Joel Waldfogel, 2018. "Quality Predictability and the Welfare Benefits from New Products: Evidence from the Digitization of Recorded Music," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 492-524.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    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:nbr:nberwo:20981. 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.