IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ratioi/0028.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Off-Label Drug Practices Argue Against FDA Efficacy Requirements? Testing an Argument by Structured Conversations with Experts

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 with amendments in 1962 is inconsistent regarding FDA certification of a drug’s efficacy. The act requires efficacy certification for the drug’s initial (“on-label”) uses, but does not require certification before physicians may prescribe for subsequent (“off-label”) uses. Are there good reasons for this inconsistency? Using a sequential online survey we carried on a “virtual conversation” with some 500 physicians. The survey asked whether efficacy requirements should be imposed on off-label uses, and almost all physicians said no. It asked whether the efficacy requirements for initial uses should be dropped, and most said no. We then gently challenged respondents asking them whether opposing efficacy requirements in one case but not the other involved an inconsistency. In response to this challenge we received hundreds of written commentaries. This investigation taps the specialized knowledge of hundreds of physicians and organizes their insights into challenges to the consistency argument. Thus, it employs a method of structured conversations with experts to test the merit of an argument. Is the consistency argument a case of “foolish consistency,” or does it hold up even under scrutiny?

Suggested Citation

  • Klein, Daniel & Tabarrok, Alexander, 2003. "Do Off-Label Drug Practices Argue Against FDA Efficacy Requirements? Testing an Argument by Structured Conversations with Experts," Ratio Working Papers 28, The Ratio Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:ratioi:0028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/wp_dk_at.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keith, Alison, 1995. "Regulating Information about Aspirin and the Prevention of Heart Attack," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 96-99, May.
    2. John E. Calfee, 1997. "Fear of Persuasion: A New Perspective on Advertising Regulation," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53387, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Daniel B. Klein & Alexander Tabarrok, 2008. "Do Off‐Label Drug Practices Argue Against FDA Efficacy Requirements? A Critical Analysis of Physicians' Argumentation for Initial Efficacy Requirements," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(5), pages 743-775, November.
    2. W. David Bradford & Andrew N. Kleit & Paul J. Nietert & Steven Ornstein, 2010. "The Effect Of Direct To Consumer Television Advertising On The Timing Of Treatment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(2), pages 306-322, April.
    3. W. David Bradford & Andrew N. Kleit, 2015. "Impact of FDA Actions, DTCA, and Public Information on the Market for Pain Medication," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 859-875, July.
    4. Nelson, Jon P. & Young, Douglas J., 2001. "Do Advertising Bans Work? An International Comparison," Working Papers 6-01-1, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Economics.
    5. W. David Bradford & Andrew N. Kleit, 2012. "Direct to Consumer Advertising for Pharmaceuticals: Research Amid the Controversy," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 31, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Nelson, Jon P., 2001. "Alcohol Advertising and Advertising Bans: A Survey of Research Methods, Results, and Policy Implications," Working Papers 7-01-2, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Haseeb Ahmed Shabbir & Hala Maalouf & Michele Griessmair & Nazan Colmekcioglu & Pervaiz Akhtar, 2019. "Exploring Perceptions of Advertising Ethics: An Informant-Derived Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 727-744, October.
    8. Rosemary Avery & Donald Kenkel & Dean Lillard & Alan Mathios, 2007. "Regulating advertisements: the case of smoking cessation products," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 185-208, April.
    9. John E. Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2002. "Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and the Demand for Cholesterol-Reducing Drugs," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(S2), pages 673-690.
    10. Clifford Winston, 2008. "The Efficacy of Information Policy: A Review of Archon Fung, Mary Graham, and David Weil's Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(3), pages 704-717, September.
    11. Daniel B. Klein, 2008. "Colleagues, Where Is the Market Failure? Economists on the FDA," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(3), pages 316-348, September.
    12. Jon P. Nelson, 2010. "What is Learned from Longitudinal Studies of Advertising and Youth Drinking and Smoking? A Critical Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-57, March.
    13. Jon Nelson, 2003. "Advertising Bans, Monopoly, and Alcohol Demand: Testing for Substitution Effects using State Panel Data," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 22(1), pages 1-25, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food and Drug Administration; drug approval; efficacy requirements; off-label uses; on-label uses; certification; liberalization;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:ratioi:0028. 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: Martin Korpi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ratiose.html .

    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.