IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ijecbs/v18y2011i2p225-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Real Option Value and Path Dependence in Oncology Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Cook
  • Joseph Golec
  • John Vernon
  • George Pink

Abstract

Drug innovation relies on cumulative, path-dependent, incremental research and development (R&D). In oncology, path-dependence may not be along a single dimension, such as steadily improving efficacy or survival against a given endpoint in the same population, but innovation builds on itself. The next innovation may use a recently developed drug in a new way - e.g., a new line of therapy, or a new indication in a different population, or in combination with other drugs. Of course, in some cases, innovation on a current drug can be the development of a next generation drug. Yet, few have studied how path-dependence impacts the decisions of oncology pharmaceutical producers, consumers, and insurers/payers. This study illustrates how real options can be used to value the effects of path-dependence, that is, the additional value that incremental innovation adds when the innovation is a first step along a path to a major innovation. We show how rational pharmaceutical producers and consumers recognize the additional real option value. However, today, many payers, particularly European governments, may use some form of drug evaluation method that ignores this option value. Observers may wonder how closely the US will follow Europe in its development of comparative-effectiveness research (CER). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 authorizes $1.1 billion to study CER. Previous attempts to measure or compare the value of medicines typically focus only on the direct effect on the initial setting for which the drug receives regulatory approval, and, hence, they ignore real option value. If CER were interpreted this way, its widespread use could reduce oncology R&D, and reduce intermediate innovations that could have led to breakthrough innovations more rapidly and simply. When a particular drug has option value, but payers who set the terms of exchange do not account for that value, the resulting mix of R&D spending will be suboptimal from a social economic welfare perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Cook & Joseph Golec & John Vernon & George Pink, 2011. "Real Option Value and Path Dependence in Oncology Innovation," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 225-238.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:18:y:2011:i:2:p:225-238
    DOI: 10.1080/13571516.2011.584428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13571516.2011.584428
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13571516.2011.584428?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2014. "Has Medical Innovation Reduced Cancer Mortality?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(1), pages 135-177.
    2. Tomas J. Philipson & Gary Becker & Dana Goldman & Kevin M. Murphy, 2010. "Terminal Care and The Value of Life Near Its End," NBER Working Papers 15649, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Tomas J. Philipson & Gary Becker & Dana Goldman & Kevin M. Murphy, 2010. "Terminal Care and The Value of Life Near Its End," NBER Working Papers 15649, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Wang, Ning & Hagedoorn, John, 2014. "The lag structure of the relationship between patenting and internal R&D revisited," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1275-1285.
    2. Joseph P. Cook & Joseph Golec, 2017. "How excluding some benefits from value assessment of new drugs impacts innovation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1813-1825, December.
    3. Shafrin, Jason & Skornicki, Michelle & Brauer, Michelle & Villeneuve, Julie & Lees, Michael & Hertel, Nadine & Penrod, John R. & Jansen, Jeroen, 2018. "An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 607-613.
    4. Joseph P Cook, 2014. "Real Option Value and Path Dependence in Oncology Innovation," Seminar Briefing 000077, Office of Health Economics.

    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. Joseph P Cook, 2014. "Real Option Value and Path Dependence in Oncology Innovation," Seminar Briefing 000077, Office of Health Economics.
    2. 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.
    3. Kuhn, Michael & Wrzaczek, Stefan & Prskawetz, Alexia & Feichtinger, Gustav, 2011. "Externalities in a life cycle model with endogenous survival," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 627-641.
    4. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 30-38.
    5. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Thornton Snider Julia & Romley John A. & Vogt William B. & Philipson Tomas J., 2012. "The Option Value of Innovation," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Alison Pearce & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Are the True Impacts of Adverse Events Considered in Economic Models of Antineoplastic Drugs? A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(6), pages 619-637, December.
    8. Kuhn, Michael & Wrzaczek, Stefan & Prskawetz, Alexia & Feichtinger, Gustav, 2015. "Optimal choice of health and retirement in a life-cycle model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 186-212.
    9. Goldszmidt, Ariel & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Muir, Ian & Smith, V. Kerry & Wang, Jenny, 2020. "The Value of Time in the United States: Estimates from Nationwide Natural Field Experiments," RFF Working Paper Series 20-23, Resources for the Future.
    10. Mark Pennington & Rachel Baker & Werner Brouwer & Helen Mason & Dorte Gyrd Hansen & Angela Robinson & Cam Donaldson & the EuroVaQ Team, 2015. "Comparing WTP Values of Different Types of QALY Gain Elicited from the General Public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 280-293, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Woojung Lee & William B. Wong & Stacey Kowal & Louis P. Garrison & David L. Veenstra & Meng Li, 2022. "Modeling the Ex Ante Clinical Real Option Value in an Innovative Therapeutic Area: ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 623-631, June.
    13. Meng Li & Anirban Basu & Caroline S. Bennette & David L. Veenstra & Louis P. Garrison, 2019. "Do cancer treatments have option value? Real‐world evidence from metastatic melanoma," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(7), pages 855-867, July.
    14. Thornton Snider Julia & Seabury Seth & Tebeka Mahlet Gizaw & Wu Yanyu & Batt Katharine, 2018. "The Option Value of Innovative Treatments for Metastatic Melanoma," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 1-10, June.
    15. Dong Chen & Dennis Petrie & Kam Tang & Dongjie Wu, 2020. "Private Information and Misinformation in Subjective Life Expectancy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 1061-1083, December.
    16. Shafrin, Jason & Skornicki, Michelle & Brauer, Michelle & Villeneuve, Julie & Lees, Michael & Hertel, Nadine & Penrod, John R. & Jansen, Jeroen, 2018. "An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 607-613.
    17. Jeon, Sung-Hee & Pohl, R. Vincent, 2019. "Medical innovation, education, and labor market outcomes of cancer patients," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    18. Johannes Schoder & Peter Zweifel, 2011. "Flat-of-the-curve medicine: a new perspective on the production of health," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Kyle, Margaret & Dubois, Pierre, 2016. "The Effects of Pharmaceutical Innovation on Cancer Mortality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11487, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2019. "How Many Life-Years Have New Drugs Saved? A 3-Way Fixed-Effects Analysis of 66 Diseases in 27 Countries, 2000-2013," NBER Working Papers 25483, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:taf:ijecbs:v:18:y:2011:i:2:p:225-238. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIJB20 .

    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.