IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v28y2007i4-5p371-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmaceutical-embodied technical progress, longevity, and quality of life: drugs as 'Equipment for Your Health'

Author

Listed:
  • Frank R. Lichtenberg

    (Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA, and National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA)

  • Suchin Virabhak

    (Pfizer Pte Ltd. (Singapore), 152 Beach Road, #33-01|04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721)

Abstract

Several econometric studies have concluded that technical progress embodied in equipment is a major source of manufacturing productivity growth. Other research has suggested that, over the long run, growth in the US economy's 'health output' has been at least as large as the growth in non-health goods and services. One important input in the production of health-pharmaceuticals-is even more R&D-intensive than equipment. In this paper, we test the pharmaceutical-embodied technical progress hypothesis-the hypothesis that newer drugs increase the length and quality of life-and estimate the rate of progress. To do this, we estimate health production functions, in which the dependent variables are various indicators of post-treatment health status (such as survival, perceived health status, and presence of physical or cognitive limitations), and the regressors include drug vintage (the year in which the FDA first approved a drug's active ingredient(s)) and indicators of pre-treatment health status. We estimate these relationships using extremely disaggregated-prescription-level-cross-sectional data derived primarily from the 1997 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We find that people who used newer drugs had better post-treatment health than people using older drugs for the same condition, controlling for pre-treatment health, age, sex, race, marital status, education, income, and insurance coverage: they were more likely to survive, their perceived health status was higher, and they experienced fewer activity, social, and physical limitations. The estimated cost of the increase in vintage required to keep a person alive is lower than some estimates of the value of remaining alive for 1 month. One estimate of the cost of preventing an activity limitation is $1745, and the annual rate of technical progress with respect to activity limitations is 8.4%. People consuming newer drugs tend to experience greater increases (or smaller declines) in physical ability than people consuming older drugs. Most of the health measures indicate that the effect of drug vintage on health is higher for people with low initial health than it is for people with high initial health. Therefore in contrast to equipment-embodied technical progress, which tends to increase economic inequality, pharmaceutical-embodied technical progress has a tendency to reduce inequality as well as promote economic growth, broadly defined. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank R. Lichtenberg & Suchin Virabhak, 2007. "Pharmaceutical-embodied technical progress, longevity, and quality of life: drugs as 'Equipment for Your Health'," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4-5), pages 371-392.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:28:y:2007:i:4-5:p:371-392
    DOI: 10.1002/mde.1347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/mde.1347
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/mde.1347?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R&D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1.
    2. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    3. Adriana Lleras-Muney & Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2002. "The Effect of Education on Medical Technology Adoption: Are the More Educated More Likely to Use New Drugs," NBER Working Papers 9185, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    5. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity Growth at the Industry Level: Is There Still a Relationship?," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 213-240, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. William D. Nordhaus, 2002. "The Health of Nations: The Contribution of Improved Health to Living Standards," NBER Working Papers 8818, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Hulten, Charles R, 1992. "Growth Accounting When Technical Change Is Embodied in Capital," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 964-980, September.
    8. Bahk, Byong-Hong & Gort, Michael, 1993. "Decomposing Learning by Doing in New Plants," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(4), pages 561-583, August.
    9. repec:umd:umdeco:sakellaris0002 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Lichtenberg, Frank R & Siegel, Donald, 1991. "The Impact of R&D Investment on Productivity--New Evidence Using Linked R&D-LRD Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 29(2), pages 203-229, April.
    11. Bartel, Ann P & Lichtenberg, Frank R, 1987. "The Comparative Advantage of Educated Workers in Implementing New Technology," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-11, February.
    12. Plutarchos Sakellaris & Dan Wilson, 2000. "The Production-Side Approach to Estimating Embodied Technological Change," Electronic Working Papers 00-002, University of Maryland, Department of Economics.
    13. Charles R. Hulten, 1992. "Growth Accounting When Technical Change is Embodied in Capital," NBER Working Papers 3971, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Franklin M. Fisher, 1965. "Embodied Technical Change and the Existence of an Aggregate Capital Stock," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 32(4), pages 263-288.
    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. Papageorgiou, Chris & Savvides, Andreas & Zachariadis, Marios, 2007. "International medical technology diffusion," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 409-427, July.
    2. Dhaval M. Dave, 2013. "Effects of Pharmaceutical Promotion: A Review and Assessment," NBER Working Papers 18830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. C. Scott Hemphill & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2011. "When Do Generics Challenge Drug Patents?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 613-649, December.
    4. Frank R. Lichtenberg & Gautier Duflos, 2008. "Pharmaceutical innovation and the longevity of Australians: A first look," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Beyond Health Insurance: Public Policy to Improve Health, pages 95-117, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    5. Alberto Batinti, 2015. "On Medical Progress and Health Care Demand: A Ces Perspective Using the Grossman Model of Health Status," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1632-1637, December.
    6. Chee-Ruey Hsieh & Ya-Ming Liu & Chia-Lin Chang, 2013. "Endogenous technological change in medicine and its impact on healthcare costs: evidence from the pharmaceutical market in Taiwan," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 287-295, April.
    7. Dhaval Dave & Henry Saffer, 2012. "Impact of Direct‐to‐Consumer Advertising on Pharmaceutical Prices and Demand," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(1), pages 97-126, July.
    8. Chris Papageorgiou & Andreas Savvides & Marios Zachariadis, 2004. "International Medical R&D Spillovers," Departmental Working Papers 2004-03, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    9. James Ang & Jakob Madsen, 2015. "Imitation versus innovation in an aging society: international evidence since 1870," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(2), pages 299-327, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Van Bui & Michael Stolpe, 2010. "The impact of new drug launches on the loss of labor from disease and injury: evidence from German panel data," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 315-346, December.
    12. Bui, Thi Mai Van & Stolpe, Michael, 2007. "The impact of new drug launches on the loss of labor from disease and injury: evidence from German panel data," Kiel Working Papers 1317, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    13. Nishimura, Junichi & Nagaoka, Sadao & Yoneyama-Hirozane, Mariko, 2022. "The impact of science-intensive drugs on longevity and cure rate: Evidence from new prescription drugs launched in Japan," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 64(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. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2005. "Pharmaceutical Knowledge-Capital Accumulation and Longevity," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 237-274, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2002. "The Effect of Changes in Drug Utilization on Labor Supply and Per Capita Output," NBER Working Papers 9139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jeremy Greenwood & Boyan Jovanovic, 2001. "Accounting for Growth," NBER Chapters, in: New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pages 179-224, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Frank Lichtenberg, 2011. "The quality of medical care, behavioral risk factors, and longevity growth," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-34, March.
    5. Daniel J. Wilson, 2002. "Is Embodied Technology the Result of Upstream R&D? Industry-Level Evidence," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 5(2), pages 285-317, April.
    6. Charles R. Hulten, 1996. "Quality Change in Capital Goods and Its Impact on Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 5569, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Charles R. Hulten, 2000. "Total Factor Productivity: A Short Biography," NBER Working Papers 7471, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Frank Lichtenberg, 2010. "The Contribution of Pharmaceutical Innovation to Longevity Growth in Germany and France," CESifo Working Paper Series 3095, CESifo.
    9. Frank Lichtenberg, 2012. "Contribution of Pharmaceutical Innovation to Longevity Growth in Germany and France, 2001–7," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 197-211, March.
    10. Plutarchos Sakellaris & Daniel J. Wilson, 2004. "Quantifying Embodied Technological Change," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26, January.
    11. Frank R. Lichtenberg & Gautier Duflos, 2008. "Pharmaceutical innovation and the longevity of Australians: A first look," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Beyond Health Insurance: Public Policy to Improve Health, pages 95-117, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    12. Hornstein, Andreas & Krusell, Per & Violante, Giovanni L., 2005. "The Effects of Technical Change on Labor Market Inequalities," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 20, pages 1275-1370, Elsevier.
    13. Fatma M. Utku-İsmihan, 2019. "Knowledge, technological convergence and economic growth: a dynamic panel data analysis of Middle East and North Africa and Latin America," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 713-733, March.
    14. Boucekkine, Raouf & de la Croix, David, 2003. "Information technologies, embodiment and growth," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(11), pages 2007-2034.
    15. Hulten, Charles R., 2010. "Growth Accounting," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 987-1031, Elsevier.
    16. Giovanni Peri, 2004. "Knowledge Flows and Productivity," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 94(2), pages 21-59, March-Apr.
    17. Bergman, Karin, 2011. "Productivity Effects of Privately and Publicly Funded R&D," Working Papers 2011:28, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    18. Rana Hasan, 2000. "The Impact of Imported and Domestic Technologies on Productivity: Evidence from Indian Manufacturing Firms," Economics Study Area Working Papers 06, East-West Center, Economics Study Area.
    19. Johanna Vogel, 2015. "The two faces of R&D and human capital: Evidence from Western European regions," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 525-551, August.
    20. Jörg MAYER, 2001. "Technology Diffusion, Human Capital And Economic Growth In Developing Countries," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 154, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics

    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:wly:mgtdec:v:28:y:2007:i:4-5:p:371-392. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .

    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.