IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/epo/papers/2007-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stagnation in the Drug Development Process: Are Patents the Problem?

Author

Listed:
  • Dean Baker

Abstract

The rate of new drug development has stagnated, in spite of large increases in both private and public sector spending on biomedical research. The flip side of slower progress is higher drug costs. The cost of developing new drugs has been rising at an average real rate of more than 7 percent since 1987. This report considers the ways in which government patent monopolies distort incentives so that pharmaceutical companies may not opt to minimize research costs. It documents some of the perverse incentives created by patent monopolies in drugs.

Suggested Citation

  • Dean Baker, 2007. "Stagnation in the Drug Development Process: Are Patents the Problem?," CEPR Reports and Issue Briefs 2007-07, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
    • Handle: RePEc:epo:papers:2007-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/healthcare_stagnation_2007_03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G. & Lasagna, Louis, 1991. "Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 107-142, July.
    2. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    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. Dean Baker, 2007. "Celebrating Pork: The Dubious Success of the Medicare Drug Benefit Health Insurance for the Elderly," CEPR Reports and Issue Briefs 2007-08, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
    2. Paul Grootendorst, 2009. "Patents, Public-Private Partnerships or Prizes – How should we support pharmaceutical innovation?," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 250, McMaster University.

    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. Scherer, F.M., 2010. "Pharmaceutical Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 539-574, Elsevier.
    2. Branstetter, Lee & Chatterjee, Chirantan & Higgins, Matthew J., 2022. "Generic competition and the incentives for early-stage pharmaceutical innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    3. Grabowski, Henry & Vernon, John & DiMasi, Joseph, 2002. "Returns on R&D for 1990s New Drug Introductions," Working Papers 02-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    4. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Versaevel, Bruno, 2019. "One lab, two firms, many possibilities: On R&D outsourcing in the biopharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 260-283.
    5. Scherer, F. M., 2007. "Pharmaceutical Innovation," Working Paper Series rwp07-004, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Yin, Nina, 2023. "Pharmaceuticals, incremental innovation and market exclusivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Costello, Christopher & Ward, Michael, 2006. "Search, bioprospecting and biodiversity conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 615-626, November.
    11. Danzon, Patricia M. & Nicholson, Sean & Pereira, Nuno Sousa, 2005. "Productivity in pharmaceutical-biotechnology R&D: the role of experience and alliances," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 317-339, March.
    12. Simone Ghislandi & Michael Kuhn, 2016. "Asymmetric information in the regulation of the access to markets," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp219, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    13. Angelo Kenneth S. Romasanta & Peter Sijde & Jacqueline Muijlwijk-Koezen, 2020. "Innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: mapping the research landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1801-1832, December.
    14. Bruce Rasmussen, 2010. "Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13680.
    15. Königbauer, Ingrid, 2006. "Dealing with Rising Health Care Costs: The Case of Pharmaceuticals," Munich Dissertations in Economics 5640, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    16. Ernst R. Berndt & Joseph P. Newhouse, 2010. "Pricing and Reimbursement in U.S. Pharmaceutical Markets," NBER Working Papers 16297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Moshe Levy & Adi Rizansky, 2014. "Market failure in the pharmaceutical industry and how it can be overcome: the CureShare mechanism," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(2), pages 143-156, March.
    18. Andreas Sturm & Michael J. Dowling & Klaus Röder, 2007. "FDA Drug Approvals: Time Is Money!," Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business and Management, vol. 12(2), pages 23-54, Fall.
    19. Morgan, Steve & Grootendorst, Paul & Lexchin, Joel & Cunningham, Colleen & Greyson, Devon, 2011. "The cost of drug development: A systematic review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 4-17, April.
    20. Frank Windmeijer & Eric de Laat & Rudy Douven & Esther Mot, 2006. "Pharmaceutical promotion and GP prescription behaviour," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 5-18, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly

    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:epo:papers:2007-07. 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/ceprdus.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.