IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0225280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Price dispersion of generic medications

Author

Listed:
  • John J J Bernstein
  • Gerhard B Holt
  • Joseph Bernstein

Abstract

Generic pharmaceuticals should have very little price dispersion. Economics’ Law of One Price suggests that identical goods, in the absence of trade frictions and under conditions of free competition and price flexibility, should sell for the same price, and the FDA ensures that generics are identical. In this study, we examine whether generic pharmaceuticals indeed have the low price dispersion that theory predicts, and if not, whether the dispersion seen for pharmaceuticals used to treat neuropsychiatric conditions is substantially higher than that of other drugs. Such a difference may offer an explanation for the price dispersion seen: namely, a strategy that takes advantage of buyers’ cognitive constraints and impaired ability to comparison shop. We thus assembled a list of generic pharmaceuticals and their prices using www.GoodRx.com, based on a convenience sample of the 5 most popular drugs for 10 common medical conditions listed there. Three neuropsychiatric diagnoses were used: Alzheimer's disease, depression and schizophrenia. Seven other diagnoses served as controls: asthma; diabetes mellitus-type II; high cholesterol; hypertension; osteoarthritis; osteoporosis; and urinary tract infection. For each drug, we identified the highest and lowest prices and calculated the mean, median and coefficient of variation (CV). We further calculated the ratios of the highest price to the median price and of the highest to lowest price. We found that the mean price CV was 43%. For neuropsychiatric drugs and controls, it was 61% and 35%, respectively. The mean high-to-median ratio was3.7 for neuropsychiatric drugs and 1.9 for controls. The mean high-to-low ratio was 5.9 for neuropsychiatric drugs and 2.8 for controls. In short, generic medications have high price dispersion, despite public availability of prices. Although our study did not examine why this price dispersion is present, the especially large high-to-low price ratio for neuropsychiatric medications suggests a strategy that exploits vulnerable patients.

Suggested Citation

  • John J J Bernstein & Gerhard B Holt & Joseph Bernstein, 2019. "Price dispersion of generic medications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-7, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0225280
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225280
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225280&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0225280?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glenn Ellison & Sara Fisher Ellison, 2009. "Search, Obfuscation, and Price Elasticities on the Internet," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 427-452, 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. Lindo, Jason M. & Pineda-Torres, Mayra, 2021. "New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Amarawan Pentrakan & Cheng-Chia Yang & Wing-Keung Wong, 2021. "How Well Does a Sequential Minimal Optimization Model Perform in Predicting Medicine Prices for Procurement System?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Neprash, Hannah T. & Zink, Anna & Sheridan, Bethany & Hempstead, Katherine, 2021. "The effect of Medicaid expansion on Medicaid participation, payer mix, and labor supply in primary care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. Fitzpatrick, Anne, 2023. "Which price is right? A comparison of three standard approaches to measuring prices," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    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. Anindya Ghose & Avi Goldfarb & Sang Pil Han, 2013. "How Is the Mobile Internet Different? Search Costs and Local Activities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 613-631, September.
    2. Hu, Li & Ma, Hoi-Lam & Wang, Li & Liu, Yang, 2023. "Hiding or disclosing? Information discrimination in member-only discounts," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Eduardo Perez & Delphine Prady, 2012. "Complicating to Persuade?," Working Papers hal-03583827, HAL.
    4. Tobias Gesche, 2022. "Reference‐price shifts and customer antagonism: Evidence from reviews for online auctions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 558-578, August.
    5. Glenn Ellison & Sara Fisher Ellison, 2017. "Search and Obfuscation in a Technologically Changing Retail Environment: Some Thoughts on Implications and Policy," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 18, pages 1-25, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Pak Hung Au & Mark Whitmeyer, 2018. "Attraction versus Persuasion: Information Provision in Search Markets," Papers 1802.09396, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    7. Moraga-Gonzalez, Jose L. & Wildenbeest, Matthijs R., 2011. "Comparison sites," IESE Research Papers D/933, IESE Business School.
      • Jose Luis Moraga-Gonzalez & Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2011. "Comparison Sites," Working Papers 2011-04, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    8. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "To buy or not to buy? Price salience in an online shopping field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    9. Andreas Leibbrandt, 2016. "Behavioral Constraints on Pricing: Experimental Evidence on Price Discrimination and Customer Antagonism," CESifo Working Paper Series 6214, CESifo.
    10. Hackl, Franz & Kummer, Michael E. & Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf & Zulehner, Christine, 2014. "Market structure and market performance in E-commerce," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 199-218.
    11. Michael R. Baye & John Morgan & Patrick Scholten, 2004. "Price Dispersion In The Small And In The Large: Evidence From An Internet Price Comparison Site," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 463-496, December.
    12. Eugenio J. Miravete, 2004. "The Doubtful Profitability of Foggy Pricing," Working Papers 04-07, NET Institute.
    13. Øystein Foros & Mai Nguyen-Ones & Frode Steen, 2021. "The Effects of a Day off from Retail Price Competition: Evidence on Consumer Behavior and Firm Performance in Gasoline Retailing," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 49-87, January.
    14. Vladimir Asriyan & Dana Foarta & Victoria Vanasco, 2023. "The Good, the Bad, and the Complex: Product Design with Imperfect Information," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 187-226, May.
    15. Glenn Ellison, 2005. "A Model of Add-On Pricing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 585-637.
    16. Hämäläinen, Saara, 2018. "Competitive search obfuscation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 38-63.
    17. Chioveanu, Ioana & Zhou, Jidong, 2009. "Price Competition and Consumer Confusion," MPRA Paper 17340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
    19. Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng & Daniel Zizzo, 2015. "Inattentive consumers in markets for services," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(2), pages 307-332, September.
    20. Deversi, Marvin & Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2021. "Spin doctors: An experiment on vague disclosure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0225280. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.