Entry time effects and follow-on drug competition
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Luiz Flavio Andrade ; Catherine Sermet…
- 关键词：Incremental innovation ; Follow ; on drugs ; Entry timing ; Market share ; I11 ; I18 ; C5 ; L65
- 刊名：The European Journal of Health Economics
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：January 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：17
- 期：1
- 页码：45-60
- 全文大小：637 KB
- 参考文献：1.Agarwal, R., Gort, M.: First-mover advantage and the speed of competitive entry 1887–1986. J. Law Econ. 44, 161–177 (2001)
2.Angell, M.: The truth about the drug companies. In: Chadha, A., Blomqvist, A. (eds.) Patent races, “me-too” drugs, and generics: a developing world perspective. Random House, New York. National University of Singapore. Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 0513 (2004)
3.Banbury, C.M., Mitchell, W.: The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival. Strateg. Manag. J. 16, 161–182 (1995)CrossRef
4.Cavalla, D.: Therapeutic switching: a new strategic approach to enhance R&D productivity. IDrugs 8(11), 914–918 (2005)PubMed
5.Chadha, A., Blomqvist, A.: Patent races, “me-too” drugs, and generics: a developing world perspective. National University of Singapore. Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 0513 (2005)
6.Crawford, G.S., Shum, M.: Uncertainty and learning in pharmaceutical demand. Econometrica 73, 1137–1173 (2005)CrossRef
7.CNAMTS.: Points de repère. Comparaisons européennes sur huit classes de médicaments, 2 (2007)
8.Cohen, J., Cabanilla, L., Sosnov, J.: Role of follow-on drugs and indications on the WHO Essential Drug List. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 31, 585–592 (2006)PubMed CrossRef
9.Coscelli, A., Shum, M.: An empirical model of learning and patient spillovers in new drug entry. J. Econom. 122, 213–246 (2004)CrossRef
10.Costa-Font, J., Rudisil, C., Mossialios, E.: Diffusion of health technologies: evidence from the pharmaceutical sector. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 18, 53–445 (2009)
11.Danzon, P.M., Chao, L.W.: Does regulation drive out competition in pharmaceutical markets? J. Law Econ. 43, 311–358 (2000)CrossRef
12.Danzon, P.M., Towse, A.: Differential pricing for pharmaceuticals: reconciling access, R&D and patents. Int. J. Health Care Financ. Econ. 3, 183–205 (2003)CrossRef
13.De Frutos, M.A., Ornaghi, C., Siotis, G.: Competition in the pharmaceutical industry: how do quality differences shape advertising strategies? J. Health Econ. 32, 268–285 (2013)PubMed CrossRef
14.Deeds, D.L., Hill, C.W.: Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 11, 41–55 (1996)CrossRef
15.DiMasi, J.A., Paquette, C.: The economics of follow-on drug research and development trends in entry rates and the timing of development. Pharmacoeconomics 22, 1–14 (2004)PubMed CrossRef
16.Ellison, G., Ellison, S.F.: Strategic entry deterrence and the behavior of pharmaceutical incumbents prior to patent expiration. NBER Working Papers 13069, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc (2007)
17.Eron Jr, J.J.: Antiretroviral therapy: new drugs, formulations, ideas, and strategies. Top HIV Med. 17, 146–150 (2009)PubMed
18.Frank, R.G.: Prescription drug prices: why do some pay more than others do? Health Aff. 20, 115–128 (2001)CrossRef
19.Gagne, J.J., Choudhry, N.K.: How many “me-too” drugs is too many? JAMA 305, 711–712 (2011)PubMed CrossRef
20.Grabowski, H.: Patents, innovation and access to new pharmaceuticals. J. Int. Econ. Law 5, 849–860 (2002)CrossRef
21.Grandfils, N., Paris, V., Sermet, C.: Les laboratoires pharmaceutiques face à l’arrivée des génériques : quelles stratégies pour quels effets ? Questions d’Economie de la Santé. IRDES. 84 (2004). http://www.irdes.fr/Publications/Qes/Qes84.pdf
22.Hall, R.E.: The relation between price and marginal cost in US industry. J. Polit. Econ. 96, 921–947 (1988)CrossRef
23.Harris, C., Vickers, J.: Patent races and the persistence of monopoly. J. Ind. Econ. 33, 461–481 (1985)CrossRef
24.Herrmann, A., Gassmann, O., Eisert, U.: An empirical study of the antecedents for radical product innovations and capabilities for transformation. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 24, 92–120 (2007)CrossRef
25.Hollis, A.: The importance of being first: evidence from Canadian generic pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 11, 723–734 (2002)PubMed CrossRef
26.Hollis, A.:. Me-too drugs: is there a problem? WHO report (2004). Availabe at http://www.irdes.fr/EspaceAnglais/Publications/IrdesPublications/QES099.pdf . Accessed 15 Sept 2011
27.Johannesson, M., Lundin, D.: The impact of physician preferences and patient habits on the diffusion of new drugs. In: SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, vol. 460 (2001)
28.Kanavos, P., Reinhardt, U.: Reference pricing for drugs: is it compatible with United States health care? Health Aff. 22, 16–30 (2003)CrossRef
29.Kettler, H.E.: Competition Through Innovation, Innovation Through Competition. Office of Health Economics, London (1998)
30.Kleinke, J.D.: The price of progress: prescription drugs in the health care market. Health Aff. 20, 43–60 (2001)CrossRef
31.Kwong, W.: An investigation of first-mover advantage in pharmaceutical advertising. In: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Economics of Population Health: Inaugural Conference of the American Society of Health Economists, TBA, Madison (2011). http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p90141_index.html . Accessed 25 March 2011
32.Lundin, D.: Moral hazard in physician prescription behavior. J. Health Econ. 19, 639–662 (2000)PubMed CrossRef
33.Mansfield, E.: Patents and innovation: an empirical study. Manag. Sci. 32, 173–181 (1986)CrossRef
34.McKinnon, R., Worzel, K., Rotz, G., Williams, H.: Crisis? What crisis? A fresh diagnosis of Big Pharma’s R&D productivity crunch. Marakon Associates, New York (2004)
35.Mosca, I., Pomp, M., Shestalova, V.: Market share and price in Dutch home care: market power or quality? De Econ. 158, 61–79 (2010)
36.Mrazek, M.: The impact of differing regulatory frameworks on post-patent pharmaceutical markets in the United Kingdom, United States and Germany 1990 to 1997. PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Sciences (2000)
37.Nguyen-Kim, L., Or, Z., Paris, V., Sermet, C.: The politics of drug reimbursement in England, France and Germany. Questions d’Economie de la santé, IRDES 99 (2005). Available at http://www.irdes.fr/EspaceAnglais/Publications/IrdesPublications/QES178.pdf . Accessed 10 Sept 2011
38.Regan, T.L.: Generic entry, price competition, and market segmentation in the prescription drug market. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 26, 930–948 (2008)CrossRef
39.Sams-Dodd, F.: Research and market strategy: how choice of drug discovery approach can affect market position. Drug Discov. Today 12, 314–318 (2007)PubMed CrossRef
40.Schweitzer, S.O.: Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy. Oxford University Press, New York (1997)
41.Serra-Sastre, V., McGuire, A.: Diffusion of health technologies: evidence from the pharmaceutical sector. In: Costa-Font, J, Courbage, C, McGuire, A (eds.) The Economics of New Health Technologies, pp. 53–69. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)
42.Serrao, E., Odde, S., Ramkumar, K., Neamati, N.: Raltegravir, elvitegravir, and metoogravir: the birth of “me-too” HIV-1 integrase inhibitors. Retrovirology 6, 25 (2009)PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
43.Sloan, F.A., Hsieh, C.R.: Incentives, Competition, and Cost-Benefit Analysis in International Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
44.Sorasith, C., Pichetti, S., Cartier, T., Célant; N., Bergua, L., Sermet, C.: Déterminants de l’écart de prix entre médicaments similaires et le premier entrant d’une classe thérapeutique. Document de travail n. 43 IRDES (2012)
45.Spinewine, A., Swine, C., Dean, F.B., Tulkens, P.M., Wilmotte, L., Lorant, V.: Appropriateness of use of medicines in elderly inpatients: qualitative study. Br. Med. J. 9, 331–935 (2005)
46.Virts, J.R, Weston, J.F.: Returns to research and development in the US pharmaceutical industry. Manag. Decis. Econ. 1, 103–111 (1980)
47.Wertheimer, A.I., Santella, T.M.: Pharmaceutical Evolution: The Advantages of Incremental Innovation in Drug Development. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. (2009). http://cei.org/issue-analysis/2009/04/07/pharmaceutical-evolution
48.Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, USA (2002) - 作者单位：Luiz Flavio Andrade (1) (2)
Catherine Sermet (2)
Sylvain Pichetti (2)
1. GATE-CNRS, University of Lyon 2, Lyon, France
2. IRDES-Paris, Paris, France - 刊物类别：Business and Economics
- 刊物主题：Economics
Economic Policy
Public Health
Public Finance and Economics - 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
- ISSN：1618-7601
文摘
Pharmaceutical firms have been criticized for concentrating efforts of R&D on the so-called me-too or follow-on drugs. There have been many comments for and against the dissemination of these incremental innovations but few papers have broached the subject from an econometric point of view, possibly because identification of me-too or follow-on drugs is not so obvious. This paper focuses on the impact of entry order on follow-on drug competition in the French market between the years 2001 and 2007. More precisely, this study examines the effects on market share of first entrants in the follow-on drug market and how this possible competitive advantage changes over time. First results are coherent with theoretical microeconomic issues concerning the importance of being first. We find evidence that first movers in the follow-on drug market have the ability to capture and maintain greater market share for a long period of time. The hierarchical market position of follow-on drugs does not seem to be affected by generic drug emergence. From a dynamic perspective, our analysis shows that market share is positively correlated with the ability of follow-on drugs to set prices higher than the average follow-on drug prices in a specific therapeutic class, which means that market power remains considerably important for first movers. Moreover, we found that the optimum level of innovation to maximize market share is the highest one. Keywords Incremental innovation Follow-on drugs Entry timing Market share