IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/amjhec/v5y2019i3p360-375.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Savage Bennette

    (Flatiron Health)

  • Anirban Basu

    (Departments of Pharmacy, Health Services, and Economics, University of Washington, and NBER)

  • Scott D. Ramsey

    (Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

  • Zachary Helms

    (Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)

  • Peter B. Bach

    (Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)

Abstract

We estimated the average returns, in terms of patient survival, to the marginal innovations in the oral chemotherapy market induced by Part D expansion of oral chemotherapy coverage for elderly individuals by mandating inclusion of “all or substantially all” oral anticancer 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 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 the Food and Drug Administration and clinical studies from January 1994 to December 2016, we find that the approval rate for oral chemotherapies increased an additional 5.7 percent (95 percent CI: 1.7, 9.8) after implementation of Part D for every 1 percent relative expansion in the Medicare market. In contrast, the same relative expansion in the Medicare market resulted in a smaller increase in the indication-specific survival gains reported in the drug's label (3.2 percent (95 percent CI: 2.1, 4.3)) and 8.0 percent (95 percent CI: 6.1, 9.8) lower in absolute and relative gains, respectively). Similar trends were not observed for intravenously administered chemotherapy whose coverage was unaffected by Part D. These findings suggest that while increased innovation will generate health benefits, there could be diminishing marginal returns to incentives for pharmaceutical innovation created by broad coverage mandates, and more nuanced coverage policies and targeted treatment uses may help maximize the health benefits provided by future pharmaceutical innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Savage Bennette & Anirban Basu & Scott D. Ramsey & Zachary Helms & Peter B. Bach, 2019. "Health Returns to Pharmaceutical Innovation in the Market for Oral Chemotherapy in Response to Insurance Coverage Expansion," American Journal of Health Economics, MIT Press, vol. 5(3), pages 360-375, Summer.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:amjhec:v:5:y:2019:i:3:p:360-375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ajhe_a_00125
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. David H. Howard & Peter B. Bach & Ernst R. Berndt & Rena M. Conti, 2015. "Pricing in the Market for Anticancer Drugs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 139-162, Winter.
    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.
    4. David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite & Manuel Hermosilla, 2014. "Pharmaceutical Profits and the Social Value of Innovation," NBER Working Papers 20212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. David H. Howard & Peter B. Bach & Ernst R. Berndt & Rena M. Conti, 2015. "Pricing in the Market for Anticancer Drugs," NBER Working Papers 20867, 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. Beth Woods & James Lomas & Mark Sculpher & Helen Weatherly & Karl Claxton, 2024. "Achieving dynamic efficiency in pharmaceutical innovation: Identifying the optimal share of value and payments required," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 804-819, April.

    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. David Besanko & David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite, 2016. "Insurance and the High Prices of Pharmaceuticals," NBER Working Papers 22353, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Hermosilla, Manuel & Wu, Yufei, 2018. "Market size and innovation: The intermediary role of technology licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 980-991.
    3. Agarwal, Ruchir & Gaule, Patrick, 2022. "What drives innovation? Lessons from COVID-19 R&D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Dranove, David & Garthwaite, Craig & Heard, Christopher & Wu, Bingxiao, 2022. "The economics of medical procedure innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. David B. Ridley & Chung-Ying Lee, 2020. "Does Medicare Reimbursement Drive Up Drug Launch Prices?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(5), pages 980-993, December.
    7. Higgins, Matthew J. & Yan, Xin & Chatterjee, Chirantan, 2021. "Unpacking the effects of adverse regulatory events: Evidence from pharmaceutical relabeling," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    8. David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite & Manuel I. Hermosilla, 2020. "Expected Profits and The Scientific Novelty of Innovation," NBER Working Papers 27093, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. 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.
    10. Edouard Debonneuil & Anne Eyraud-Loisel & Frédéric Planchet, 2018. "Can Pension Funds Partially Manage Longevity Risk by Investing in a Longevity Megafund?," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-27, July.
    11. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Shearer, Emily & Mossialos, Elias, 2020. "Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    12. Beth Woods & James Lomas & Mark Sculpher & Helen Weatherly & Karl Claxton, 2024. "Achieving dynamic efficiency in pharmaceutical innovation: Identifying the optimal share of value and payments required," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 804-819, April.
    13. Mark Duggan & Craig Garthwaite & Aparajita Goyal, 2016. "The Market Impacts of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in Developing Countries: Evidence from India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 99-135, January.
    14. Chatterjee, Chirantan & Gupta, Samarth, 2024. "Public entry and private prices: New evidence from Indian pharmaceutical markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 473-489.
    15. Seabury Seth A. & Goldman Dana P. & Gupta Charu N. & Khan Zeba M. & Chandra Amitabh & Philipson Tomas J. & Lakdawalla Darius N., 2016. "Quantifying Gains in the War on Cancer Due to Improved Treatment and Earlier Detection," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 141-156, June.
    16. Leila Agha & Soomi Kim & Danielle Li, 2020. "Insurance Design and Pharmaceutical Innovation," NBER Working Papers 27563, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Boone, Jan, 2020. "Pricing above Value: Selling to an Adverse Selection Market," Discussion Paper 2020-023, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Boone, Jan, 2020. "Pricing above Value: Selling to an Adverse Selection Market," Other publications TiSEM 700b2f3e-d1c8-4422-9b54-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pharmaceutical innovation; chemotherapy; Part D;
    All these keywords.

    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

    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:tpr:amjhec:v:5:y:2019:i:3:p:360-375. 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.