IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/704.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: A choice modelling experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Merino

Abstract

Despite the importance of supplier inducement and brand loyalty in the drug purchasing process, little empirical evidence is to be found with regard to the influence that these factors exert on patients’ decisions. Under the new scenario of easier access to information, patients are becoming more demanding and even go as far as questioning their physicians’ prescription. Furthermore, new regulation also encourages patients to adopt an active role in the decision between brand-name and generic drugs. Using a stated preference model based on a choice survey, I have found evidence of how significant physicians’ prescription and pharmacists’ recommendation become throughout the drug purchase process and, to what extent, brand loyalty influences the final decision. As far as we are aware, this paper is the first to explicitly take consumers’ preferences into account rather than focusing on the behavior of health professionals.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Merino, 2003. "Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: A choice modelling experiment," Economics Working Papers 704, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/704.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sara Ellison Fisher & Iain Cockburn & Zvi Griliches & Jerry Hausman, 1997. "Characteristics of Demand for Pharmaceutical Products: An Examination of Four Cephalosporins," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 426-446, Autumn.
    2. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Uwe Dulleck & Rudolf Kerschbamer, 2001. "On Doctors, Mechanics and Computer Specialists Or Where are the Problems with Credence Goods?," Vienna Economics Papers vie0101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    4. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:3:p:349-69 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Judith K. Hellerstein, 1998. "The Importance of the Physician in the Generic Versus Trade-Name Prescription Decision," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(1), pages 108-136, Spring.
    6. Armantier Olivier & Namoro Soiliou, 2006. "Prescription Drug Advertising and Patient Compliance: A Physician Agency Approach," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-41, September.
    7. Paul Ellickson & Scott Stern & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "Patient Welfare and Patient Compliance -- An Empirical Framework for Measuring the Benefits from Pharmaceutical Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Medical Care Output and Productivity, pages 539-564, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    9. Dulleck, Uwe & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2001. "On Doctors, Mechanics and Computer Specialists. Or Where are the Problems with Credence Goods?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3016, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    11. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    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. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2007. "Importation And Innovation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 403-417.
    2. Johanna Vásquez Velásquez & José Vicente Cadavid Herrera & Andrés Ramírez Hassan & Karoll Gómez Portilla, 2013. "Elasticidad de la demanda por medicamentos en el mercado farmacéutico privado en Colombia," Revista Ecos de Economía, Universidad EAFIT, June.
    3. Aida Isabel Tavares, 2017. "Generic substitution policy, an incentive approach," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 199-220, June.
    4. Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Age and Choice in Health Insurance," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(1), pages 27-40, January.
    5. Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2005. "Cost Sharing in Health Insurance: An Instrument for Risk Selection?," SOI - Working Papers 0513, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    6. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    7. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    8. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Economics Working Papers 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

    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. Anna Merino, 2003. "Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: A choice modelling experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 704, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    3. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    4. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    5. Thijs Brouwer & Fabio Galeotti & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "Teaching Norms: Direct Evidence of Parental Transmission," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(650), pages 872-887.
    6. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    8. Brekke, Kurt R. & Holmas, Tor Helge & Straume, Odd Rune, 2011. "Reference pricing, competition, and pharmaceutical expenditures: Theory and evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 624-638.
    9. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    10. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    11. Godager, Geir, 2012. "Birds of a feather flock together: A study of doctor–patient matching," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 296-305.
    12. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    13. Sacks, Daniel W., 2018. "Why do HMOs spend less? Patient selection, physician price sensitivity, and prices," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 146-161.
    14. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    15. Kockelman, Kara M. & Podgorski, Kaethe & Bina, Michelle & Gadda, Shashank, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Pricing Existing Roads and Other Transportation Policies: The Texas Perspective," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 48(3).
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    17. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    18. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," Working Papers hal-03393117, HAL.
    19. Borzekowski, Ron & Kiser, Elizabeth K., 2008. "The choice at the checkout: Quantifying demand across payment instruments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 889-902, July.
    20. Aysegul Timur & Gabriel Picone & Jeffrey DeSimone, 2011. "Has the European union achieved a single pharmaceutical market?," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 223-244, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Brand loyalty; demand inducement; drug price elasticity; discrete choice experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    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:upf:upfgen:704. 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: http://www.econ.upf.edu/ .

    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.