IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/23842.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Returns to Pharmaceutical Innovation in the Market for Oral Chemotherapy in Response to Insurance Coverage Expansion

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline S. Bennette
  • Anirban Basu
  • Scott D. Ramsey
  • Zachary Helms
  • Peter B. Bach

Abstract

We estimated the average returns, in terms of patient survival, to the marginal innovations in oral chemotherapy market induced by Part D expansion of oral chemotherapy coverage for elderly individuals by mandating inclusion of “all or substantially all” oral anti-cancer medications on plans’ formularies. We exploited exogenous variation in the age of diagnosis for different cancer sites - and therefore the relative expansion in market size for different cancers under the Medicare’s prescription drug coverage – to isolate the effect of Part D on innovation and the health benefits that these innovative technologies provide. Using data from FDA and clinical studies from January 1994 to December 2016, we find that the approval rate for oral chemotherapies increased an additional 5.7% (95% CI: 1.7, 9.8) after implementation of Part D for every 1% increase in exposure to the Medicare market. In contrast, greater exposure to Medicare was associated with a smaller increase in the indication-specific survival gains reported in the drug’s label (3.2% [95% CI: 2.1, 4.3]) and 8.0% [95% CI: 6.1, 9.8] lower in absolute and relative gains, respectively). Similar trends were not observed for intravenously administered chemotherapy whose coverage was largely unaffected by Part D. These findings suggest that there could be diminishing returns to incentives for pharmaceutical innovation created by broad coverage mandates and that health policy tools, such as value–based pricing, may help maximize the health benefits provided by future pharmaceutical innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline S. Bennette & Anirban Basu & Scott D. Ramsey & Zachary Helms & Peter B. Bach, 2017. "Returns to Pharmaceutical Innovation in the Market for Oral Chemotherapy in Response to Insurance Coverage Expansion," NBER Working Papers 23842, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23842
    Note: EH PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23842.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lakdawalla, Darius & Sood, Neeraj & Gu, Qian, 2013. "Pharmaceutical advertising and Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1356-1367.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Dubois, Pierre & Majewska, Gosia, 2022. "Mergers and Advertising in the Pharmaceutical Industry," TSE Working Papers 22-1380, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    2. Gamba, Simona & Magazzini, Laura & Pertile, Paolo, 2021. "R&D and market size: Who benefits from orphan drug legislation?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Katharina E. Blankart & Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2022. "The Effects of Off-label Drug Use on Disability and Medical Expenditure," NBER Working Papers 30440, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Nicholas Bagley & Benjamin Berger & Amitabh Chandra & Craig Garthwaite & Ariel D. Stern, 2018. "The Orphan Drug Act at 35: Observations and an Outlook for the Twenty-First Century," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 19, pages 97-137, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Giammario Impullitti & Richard Kneller & Danny McGowan, 2020. "Demand‐Driven Technical Change and Productivity Growth: Theory and Evidence FROM the Energy Policy Act," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 328-363, June.
    6. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    7. Mark Pauly & Kyle Myers, 2016. "A Ricardian-Demand Explanation for Changing Pharmaceutical R&D Productivity," NBER Working Papers 22720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Iizuka, Toshiaki & Uchida, Gyo, 2017. "Promoting innovation in small markets: Evidence from the market for rare and intractable diseases," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 56-65.
    9. Alpert, Abby & Lakdawalla, Darius & Sood, Neeraj, 2023. "Prescription drug advertising and drug utilization: The role of Medicare Part D," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    10. Christopher P. Adams, 2021. "CBO's Simulation Model of New Drug Development: Working Paper 2021-09," Working Papers 57010, Congressional Budget Office.
    11. Beerli, Andreas & Weiss, Franziska J. & Zilibotti, Fabrizio & Zweimüller, Josef, 2020. "Demand forces of technical change evidence from the Chinese manufacturing industry," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Leila Agha & Soomi Kim & Danielle Li, 2020. "Insurance Design and Pharmaceutical Innovation," NBER Working Papers 27563, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Agarwal, Ruchir & Gaule, Patrick, 2022. "What drives innovation? Lessons from COVID-19 R&D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    14. Jillian Chown & David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite & Jordan Keener, 2019. "The Opportunities and Limitations of Monopsony Power in Healthcare: Evidence from the United States and Canada," NBER Working Papers 26122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Hermosilla, Manuel & Wu, Yufei, 2018. "Market size and innovation: The intermediary role of technology licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 980-991.
    16. Dranove, David & Garthwaite, Craig & Heard, Christopher & Wu, Bingxiao, 2022. "The economics of medical procedure innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    17. Eric Helland & Seth A. Seabury, 2016. "Are Settlements in Patent Litigation Collusive? Evidence from Paragraph IV Challenges," NBER Working Papers 22194, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Samandar Ali Eshtehardi, Mojgan & Bagheri, Seyed Kamran & Di Minin, Alberto, 2017. "Regional innovative behavior: Evidence from Iran," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 128-138.
    19. 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.
    20. Jeffrey Clemens & Joshua D. Gottlieb, 2017. "In the Shadow of a Giant: Medicare’s Influence on Private Physician Payments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 1-39.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:23842. 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.