IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201518.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An equilibrium model estimated on pharmaceutical data

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to estimate to what extent patients/doctors respond to prices when making a choice between a brand name product and its generics, and also how pharmacies respond to government regulation and to prices set by brand name producers. Data is unique in the sense that we observe prices set by pharmacies as well as by producers. We have estimated the demand side, but also jointly the demand side and the price setting by retailers/wholesalers and producers. Results confirm that estimating only the demand side yields biased estimates. Taking the whole data generating process into account we find much stronger price responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Dalen, Dag Morten & Locatelli, Marilena & Strom, Steinar, 2015. "An equilibrium model estimated on pharmaceutical data," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201518, University of Turin.
    • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2015dip/wp_18_2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arcidiacono, Peter & Ellickson, Paul B. & Landry, Peter & Ridley, David B., 2013. "Pharmaceutical followers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 538-553.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    3. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    4. Skipper, Niels & Vejlin, Rune, 2015. "Determinants of generic vs. brand drug choice: Evidence from population-wide Danish data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 204-215.
    5. Granlund, David, 2010. "Price and welfare effects of a pharmaceutical substitution reform," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 856-865, December.
    6. Dag Morten Dalen & Marilena Locatelli & Enrico Sorisio & Steinar Str?m, 2014. "Does the Identity of the Third-Party Payer Matter for Prescribing Doctors?," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 1(1), pages 39-54, May.
    7. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:3:p:349-69 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Kai Yeung & Anirban Basu & Ryan N. Hansen & Sean D. Sullivan, 2016. "Price Elasticities of Pharmaceuticals in a Value-Based-Formulary Setting," NBER Working Papers 22308, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. 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.
    10. Lundin, Douglas, 2000. "Moral hazard in physician prescription behavior," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 639-662, September.
    11. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    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. Kaiser, Ulrich & Mendez, Susan J. & Rønde, Thomas & Ullrich, Hannes, 2014. "Regulation of pharmaceutical prices: Evidence from a reference price reform in Denmark," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 174-187.
    2. Granlund, David & Sundström, David, 2018. "Physicians prescribing originals causes welfare losses," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 143-146.
    3. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    4. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    5. Pierre Dubois & Rachel Griffith & Martin O'Connell, 2020. "How Well Targeted Are Soda Taxes?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3661-3704, November.
    6. Mattia Girotti & Richard Meade, 2017. "U.S. Savings Banks' Demutualization and Depositor Welfare," Working Papers 2017-08, Auckland University of Technology, Department of Economics.
    7. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2021. "Foundations of Demand Estimation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2301, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    8. Rachel Griffith & Lars Nesheim & Martin O'Connell, 2018. "Income effects and the welfare consequences of tax in differentiated product oligopoly," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), pages 305-341, March.
    9. Ruben Loon & Tom Gosens & Jan Rouwendal, 2014. "Cultural heritage and the attractiveness of cities: evidence from recreation trips," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(3), pages 253-285, August.
    10. Jan De Loecker & Paul T. Scott, 2016. "Estimating market power Evidence from the US Brewing Industry," NBER Working Papers 22957, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Odran Bonnet & Alfred Galichon & Yu-Wei Hsieh & Keith O’Hara & Matt Shum, 2022. "Yogurts Choose Consumers? Estimation of Random-Utility Models via Two-Sided Matching," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(6), pages 3085-3114.
    12. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    13. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2007. "Discrete Choice Models With Multiple Unobserved Choice Characteristics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1159-1192, November.
    14. Satoshi Nakano & Kazuhiko Nishimura, 2013. "Welfare gain from quality and price development in the Japan’s LCD TV market," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 889-908, September.
    15. Richards, Timothy J. & Gómez, Miguel I. & Pofahl, Geoffrey, 2012. "A Multiple-discrete/Continuous Model of Price Promotion," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 206-225.
    16. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    17. Gregory S. Crawford & Nicola Pavanini & Fabiano Schivardi, 2018. "Asymmetric Information and Imperfect Competition in Lending Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1659-1701, July.
    18. Laura Grigolon, 2021. "Blurred boundaries: A flexible approach for segmentation applied to the car market," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(4), pages 1273-1305, November.
    19. Brian Jacob & Brian McCall & Kevin Stange, 2018. "College as Country Club: Do Colleges Cater to Students’ Preferences for Consumption?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(2), pages 309-348.
    20. Braggion, Fabio & Manconi, Alberto & Pavanini, Nicola & Zhu, Haikun, 2022. "The Value of Financial Intermediation: Evidence from Online Debt Crowdfunding," CEPR Discussion Papers 14740, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    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:uto:dipeco:201518. 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: Piero Cavaleri or Marina Grazioli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.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.