IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5717.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Strategic Response by Pharmaceutical Firms to the Medicaid Most-Favored-Customer Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Fiona Scott Morton

Abstract

In 1990 the Federal Government included a Most Favored Customer (MFC) clause in the contract (OBRA 90) which would govern the prices paid to firms for pharmaceutical products supplied to Medicaid recipients. The firms had to give Medicaid their best (lowest) price in some cases, a percentage below average price in others. Many theoretical models have shown that an MFC rule commits a firm to compete less aggressively in prices. We might expect prices to rise following the implementation of the MFC rule, yet the work done to date on OBRA 90 has found this result somewhat difficult to show empirically. I also conclude that the effects of the law are small and relatively weak; however, the results are strongest where the product's characteristics match the incentives in the law. I find that after the MFC rule was implemented the average price of branded products facing generic competition rose - the median presentation's price rose about 4%. Brands protected by patents did not significantly increase price. Generics in concentrated markets should display a strategic response to the brand's adoption of the MFC. I find support for the strategic effect; generic firms raise their prices more as their markets become more concentrated. I find little change in hospital prices. The results suggest that the MFC rule resulted in higher prices to some non-Medicaid consumers of pharmaceuticals.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiona Scott Morton, 1996. "The Strategic Response by Pharmaceutical Firms to the Medicaid Most-Favored-Customer Rules," NBER Working Papers 5717, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:5717
    Note: IO
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5717.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Png, I P L & Hirshleifer, D, 1987. "Price Discrimination through Offers to Match Price," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(3), pages 365-383, July.
    2. Png, I P L, 1991. "Most-Favored-Customer Protection versus Price Discrimination over Time," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 1010-1028, October.
    3. Crocker, Keith J & Lyon, Thomas P, 1994. "What do Facilitating Practices Facilitate? An Empirical Investigation of Most-Favored-Nation Clauses in Natural Gas Contracts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 297-322, October.
    4. Charles A. Holt & David T. Scheffman, 1987. "Facilitating Practices: The Effects of Advance Notice and Best-Price Policies," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 187-197, Summer.
    5. Thomas E. Cooper, 1986. "Most-Favored-Customer Pricing and Tacit Collusion," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(3), pages 377-388, Autumn.
    6. Steven Salop, 1977. "The Noisy Monopolist: Imperfect Information, Price Dispersion and Price Discrimination," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(3), pages 393-406.
    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. Whaley, Christopher M., 2019. "Provider responses to online price transparency," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 241-259.
    2. Andrew Bernard & Joachim Wagner, 2001. "Export entry and exit by German firms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 137(1), pages 105-123, March.

    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. Cohen-Vernik, Dinah & Pazgal, Amit, 2017. "Price Adjustment Policy with Partial Refunds," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(4), pages 507-526.
    2. Spier, Kathryn E., 2001. "The Use of “Most-Favored-Nation” Clauses in Settlement of Litigation," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt7hm4d39g, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    3. Tingliang Huang & Zhe Yin & Ying-Ju Chen, 2017. "Managing Posterior Price Matching: The Role of Customer Boundedly Rational Expectations," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 385-402, July.
    4. Guoming Lai & Laurens G. Debo & Katia Sycara, 2010. "Buy Now and Match Later: Impact of Posterior Price Matching on Profit with Strategic Consumers," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 33-55, December.
    5. Kathryn E. Spier, 2003. "“Tied to the Mast”: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses in Settlement Contracts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 91-120, January.
    6. Fiona M. Scott Morton, 1997. "The Interaction between a Most‐Favored‐Customer Clause and Price Dispersion: An Empirical Examination of the Medicaid Rebate Rules of 1990," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 151-174, March.
    7. Wen, Zhong, 2014. "Mixed pricing in oligopoly with limited monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 87-92.
    8. Dmitry Shapiro & Xianwen Shi, 2008. "Market Segmentation: The Role of Opaque Travel Agencies," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(4), pages 803-837, December.
    9. Arbatskaya, Maria & Hviid, Morten & Shaffer, Greg, 2004. "On the Incidence and Variety of Low-Price Guarantees," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 307-332, April.
    10. Patrick Hughes & Margaret Sanderson, 1998. "Conspiracy Law and Jurisprudence in Canada: Towards an Economic Approach," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 13(1), pages 153-176, April.
    11. Klibanoff Peter & Kundu Tapas, 2010. "Monopoly Pricing under a Medicaid-Style Most-Favored-Customer Clause and Its Welfare Implication," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-43, August.
    12. Arcan Nalca & Tamer Boyaci & Saibal Ray, 2013. "Competitive Price-Matching Guarantees: Equilibrium Analysis of the Availability Verification Clause Under Demand Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 971-986, April.
    13. Xu, Frances Zhiyun, 2011. "Optimal best-price policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 628-643, September.
    14. Corts, Kenneth S., 1997. "On the competitive effects of price-matching policies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 283-299, May.
    15. Morten Hviid & Greg Shaffer, 2010. "Matching Own Prices, Rivals' Prices Or Both?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 479-506, September.
    16. Pinar Akman & Morten Hviid, 2005. "A Most-Favoured-Customer Guarantee with a Twist," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2005-08, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    17. d'Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe & Gerard-Varet, Louis-Andre, 1997. "General Equilibrium Concepts under Imperfect Competition: A Cournotian Approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 199-230, March.
    18. Raskovich, Alexander, 2007. "Competition or collusion? Negotiating discounts off posted prices," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 341-354, April.
    19. Gaynor, Martin & Vogt, William B., 2000. "Antitrust and competition in health care markets," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 27, pages 1405-1487, Elsevier.
    20. Louis-André Gérard-Varet & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Claude d'Aspremont, 1991. "Concurrence en prix et équilibres cournotiens," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 42(6), pages 967-996.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    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:nbr:nberwo:5717. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.