Can health insurance coverage explain the generic competition paradox?

Ferrara Ida,Kong Ying

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2008.04.011

IF: 1.469

2008-01-01

Economics Letters

Abstract:In the context of a three-stage model with consumers differing in their health insurance coverage, the paper shows that there exist conditions under which the price of brand-name drugs increases following the entry of generic drugs.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Competition Between Brand-Name and Generics--analysis on Pricing of Brand-Name Pharmaceutical.

Ying Kong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1392

IF: 2.395

2008-01-01

Health Economics

Abstract:The objective of this paper is to provide two-stage game models explaining the 'Generic Competition Paradox' that demonstrates an increase of brand-name drug price in response to generic entry. Under the assumption that there are two groups of consumers who are segmented by their insurance status, high insurance coverage and low insurance coverage consumers, the models indicate that the decisive factor is the market share of the high insurance coverage consumer and the size of cross-substitute factor relative to certain characteristics of market demand. The paper analyses both the case of only true generic entry and the case of pseudo-generic and true generic entry. The models prove that a brand-name price will increase when both the market share of high insurance coverage consumer and the factor of cross-substitute are small. Also, the 'Generic Competition Paradox' more likely occurs in the market where less pseudo-generic products are produced.
The price premium of generic to brand-names and pharmaceutical price index

Kong Y

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0003684042000222106

IF: 1.916

2007-01-01

Applied Economics

Abstract:The price premium of generic pharmaceuticals to brand-names is examined under different competitive market situations. The result of this study shows that the number, market share, and the age of both brand-name and generic products have the most explanatory power for explaining the price premium. This study further applies this method to a pharmaceutical price index in order to explain 'Drug Price Index Perplexities.'
An empirical study of the impact of generic drug competition on drug market prices in China

Chen Yina,Liu Pengcheng,Nie Haomiao,Cao Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1146531

IF: 5.2

2023-05-25

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Introduction: Generic substitution is encouraged to reduce pharmaceutical spending in China, and with incentive policies, the market size of the generic drug continues to rise. To find out how the generic competition affects drug price in this area, this study examines how the quantity of generic drug manufacturers can influence average drug price in the Chinese market. Methods: This study uses a rigorous selection of drugs from the 2021 China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), and uses drug-level fixed effects regressions to estimate the relationship between competition and price within each drug. Results: We note that drug prices decline with increasing competition in the Chinese market, but not in a perfectly linear manner, with marginal price declines decreasing after the fourth entrant and "rebounding" at subsequent entrants, especially the sixth. Discussion: The findings suggest the importance of maintaining effective competition between suppliers to control prices, and that the government needs to further control generic pricing, especially for late entry generics, to ensure effective competition in the Chinese market.

public, environmental & occupational health
Pseudo-Generic Products and Barriers to Entry in Pharmaceutical Markets

Ying Kong,James R. Seldon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/b:reio.0000040524.32034.04

2004-01-01

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:This paper examines incentives for brand-name pharmaceutical producers to market pseudo-generic versions of their own branded products upon the expiry of patent protection. Using a two-stage game model, we determine that under plausible demand and cost conditions, brand-name incumbents can find it profitable to produce pseudo-generics as a means of blocking rivals' entry even when independent firms producing true generics face low entry costs. The model shows that social welfare can be higher when firms use pseudo-generics instead of capacity for entry deterrence as long as substitutability between brand-name and generic products is sufficiently high.
Competition in prescription drug markets: the roles of trademarks, advertising, and generic names

Roger Feldman,Félix Lobo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-012-0414-7

Abstract:We take on two subjects of controversy among economists-advertising and trademarks-in the context of the market for generic drugs. We outline a model in which trademarks for drug names reduce search costs but increase product differentiation. In this particular framework, trademarks may not benefit consumers. In contrast, the generic names of drugs or "International Nonproprietary Names" (INN) have unquestionable benefits in both economic theory and empirical studies. We offer a second model where advertising of a brand-name drug creates recognition for the generic name. The monopoly patent-holder advertises less than in the absence of a competitive spillover.
The Impact of Generic Drug Entry on Market Shares and Prices of Brand-Name Drugs– Evidence from Chinese Pharmaceutical Market

J. Chen,Y. Tian,L. W. Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.065

IF: 5.156

2018-01-01

Value in Health

Abstract:This article empirically analyzes for the pharmaceutical market in China. We aimed to analyse how market shares and prices for brand name drugs are affected by generic competition. The analysis was based on micro data for 27 different original drugs, which experienced initial generic entry during 2006 to 2016. Quarterly utilization and expenditure data were derived from China Medicine Economic Information (CMEI), a large database of drug procurement records covering 699 tertiary hospitals (accounting for 40% of all tertiary hospitals) cross 28 provinces in mainland China. We compared the change of market share and price of brand-name drugs after the generic entry. General Linear Regression was performed to analyze the impact factors of market share of brand-name drugs. 15 of 27 brand-name drugs maintained over 70% market share (6 brand-name drugs occupying more than 90% market share) after eight quarters following the first generic entry. 25 brand-name companies lowered prices with an average price decrease of 0.03% eight quarters after the first generic competitor appeared while in 2 cases prices rose by an average of 0.01%. GLM showed that the number of generic manufactures and time interval of the first generic entry exhibited a negative relation with the share of the off-patent branded medicine (P<0.01; P<0.01). Regression also showed that the number of generic manufactures and time interval of the first generic entry were not significantly associated with the brand-name prices (P=0.61; P=0.42). Our results showed that there was relatively low market penetration of generic medicines in China. There was no statistically significant change in brand-name prices when generic competition started. The lack of generic competition may lead to increased costs in the Chinese pharmaceutical market. It is needed to further research for more effective policy mix that will encourage generic entry and penetration.
Brand vs. Generic: Addressing Non-Adherence, Secular Trends, and Non-Overlap

Lamar Hunt III,Irene B. Murimi,Jodi B. Segal,Marissa J. Seamans,Daniel O. Scharfstein,Ravi Varadhan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.05385

2019-07-07

Abstract:While generic drugs offer a cost-effective alternative to brand name drugs, regulators need a method to assess therapeutic equivalence in a post market setting. We develop such a method in the context of assessing the therapeutic equivalence of immediate release (IM) venlafaxine, based on a large insurance claims dataset provided by OptumLabs\textsuperscript{\textregistered}. To properly address this question, our methodology must deal with issues of non-adherence, secular trends in health outcomes, and lack of treatment overlap due to sharp uptake of the generic once it becomes available. We define, identify (under assumptions) and estimate (using G-computation) a causal effect for a time-to-event outcome by extending regression discontinuity to survival curves. We do not find evidence for a lack of therapeutic equivalence of brand and generic IM venlafaxine.

Applications,Methodology
Strategic behavior and entry deterrence by branded drug firms: the case of authorized generic drugs

Lu Yao,Mengde Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01721-y

2024-09-24

Abstract:Pharmaceutical firms that market brand-name drugs lose substantial market share to generic manufacturers after patent expiration. As a response to the threat of generic competition, branded manufacturers pursue defensive strategies. One such strategy is the launch of authorized generic drugs. Authorized generic drugs are produced by branded manufacturers to compete against other generic drug entrants. Such competition may lower the expected profits of generic drug manufacturers and hence deter future generic drug entry. This paper models and empirically examines whether the introduction of authorized generic drugs changes the independent generic firms' decisions on entering the market. We use an instrumental variable approach to evaluate the effect of authorized generic drugs on the responses of generic manufacturers. The results show that the entry of authorized generic drugs deters and delays the entry of generic drugs.
Switching Costs, Brand Premia and Behavioral Pricing in the Pharmaceutical Market

Aljoscha Janssen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3644348

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:This article examines the market power of branded prescription drugs faced with generic competition. Using prescription-level and matched socioeconomic panel data of the entire Swedish population between 2010 and 2016, I provide evidence for the key role of switching costs. A discontinuity surrounding patent expirations establishes that the effect is causal. Further, by comparing patients with and without medical education, I show that those without medical education experience higher brand premia. A unique feature of the Swedish market allows me to rule out patients' inattention due to information costs as a source of market power. Therefore, switching costs and perceived quality differences are the key determinants of market power. I then estimate a dynamic oligopoly model with forward-looking firms which is used in counterfactual studies of the effect of switching costs and perceived quality differences on prices. First, an increase in the length of procurement mimics a reduction of switching costs and increases prices. While the effect of switching costs on prices in theory is ambiguous, moderate switching costs and sufficient competition for new patients increase competitive pressure. Second, if everyone acts as a medical expert and experiences fewer brand premia, prices decrease.
Generic Drugs in the United States: Policies to Address Pricing and Competition

Ravi Gupta,Nilay D. Shah,Joseph S. Ross

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1314

2019-01-10

Abstract:The cost of prescription drugs in the United States continues to be a source of concern for patients, caregivers, and policymakers. Drug prices typically decline rapidly once generic drugs receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and enter the market, but the past decade has witnessed rising costs and shortages of generic drugs. We describe the strategies used by brand-name manufacturers to undermine generic competition and the reasons underlying the price increases of off-patent drugs, some of which continue to lack any competition from generic versions, and others that have increased in price despite having generic versions. We discuss the FDA's role in addressing drug prices and promoting competition, including recent agency policies to modify its process of reviewing generic drug applications and to prioritize applications for off-patent drugs with few competitors. We also examine proposed policy solutions and research areas that could help address the price increases of off-patent drugs.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Decreasing utilization and increasing prices of brand-name oral contraceptive pills: Implications to societal costs and market competition

James X Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234463

IF: 3.7

2020-06-11

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The affordability of pharmaceuticals has been a major challenge in US health care. Generic substitution has been proposed as an important tool to reduce the costs, yet little is known how the prices of more expensive brand-name drugs would be affected by an increased utilization of generics. We aimed to examine the trend of overall utilization and the total costs of brand-name oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), the most widely used form of contraception, and its association with the pharmaceutical market concentration among the OCPs. Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 2011-2014, a nationally representative survey of healthcare utilization, were extracted on the utilization of generic and brand-name OCPs. A multiple logit regression analysis was conducted to assess the trend in utilization of brand-name OCPs over time. Total costs, including the costs to the payers and consumers, were synthesized. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), an index describing market concentration, was constructed, and a multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between the brand-name OCP prices and the market share of individual brand-name drugs. The odds of utilizing brand-name drugs decreased steadily in 2012, 2013, and 2014 compared to 2012 (AOR 0.87, 0.73, 0.55, respectively, p<0.05) controlling for patient mix. Despite significant decline in total utilization, there was a 90% increase in the price of brand-name OCPs, resulting an 18% increase in revenue from 2011 to 2014 for the industry. During this time, pharmaceutical market concentration for OCPs increased (HHI increased from 1105 in 2011 to 2415 in 2014). Each percentage point increase in the market share by a brand-name OCPs was associated with a $3.12 increase in its price. Market mechanisms matter. Practitioners and policy makers need to take market mechanisms into account in order to realize the benefits of generic substitutions.
Continuing trends in U.S. brand-name and generic drug competition

Henry Grabowski,Genia Long,Richard Mortimer,Mehmet Bilginsoy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1952795

Abstract:Objective: To provide updated evidence in a series of analyses of U.S. trends over the past two decades in key financial metrics for branded drugs: market exclusivity periods (MEPs, the time between launch and first generic entry) for new molecular entities (NMEs); the probability, timing and number of patent challenges under Paragraph IV of the Hatch-Waxman Act; and the intensity of generic penetration. Methods: As previously, we used IQVIA National Sales Perspectives U.S. data to calculate MEPs for the 356 NMEs experiencing initial generic entry from 1995 through 2019, the number of generic competitors for twelve months afterward (by prior sales level), and generic shares. We calculated the probability, timing and number of Paragraph IV challengers using Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) approval letters, the FDA website, public information searches, and ParagraphFour.com. Results: For NMEs experiencing initial generic entry in 2017-19, the MEP was 13.0 years for drugs with sales greater than $250 million in 2008 dollars the year before generic entry (NMEs>$250 million), 14.1 years overall. One year later, brands' average unit share was 18% for NMEs>$250 million, 23% overall. Ninety-three percent of NMEs>$250 million experiencing initial generic entry faced at least one Paragraph IV challenge (2019, three-year rolling average), an average of 6.0 years after brand launch (81% and 6.3 years for all NMEs). NMEs faced an average of 6.8 and 8.9 Paragraph IV challengers per NME, for all and NMEs>$250 million, respectively (2017-19 figures). Limitations: All analyses were restricted to NMEs experiencing generic entry. Conclusion: The average 2017-19 MEP of 13.0 years for NMEs>$250 million has changed relatively little over the past decade and remains lower than for all NMEs (14.1 years). Paragraph IV challenges are more frequent and occur earlier for NMEs>$250 million. Generic share erosion remains high for both NME types.
Impact of European pharmaceutical price regulation on generic price competition: a review

Jaume Puig-Junoy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11535360-000000000-00000

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:Although economic theory indicates that it should not be necessary to intervene in the generic drug market through price regulation, most EU countries intervene in this market, both by regulating the maximum sale price of generics (price cap) and by setting the maximum reimbursement rate, especially by means of reference pricing systems. We analyse current knowledge of the impact of direct price-cap regulation of generic drugs and the implementation of systems regulating the reimbursement rate, particularly through reference pricing and similar tools, on dynamic price competition between generic competitors in Europe. A literature search was carried out in the EconLit and PubMed databases, and on Google Scholar. The search included papers published in English or Spanish between January 2000 and July 2009. Inclusion criteria included that studies had to present empirical results of a quantitative nature for EU countries of the impact of price capping and/or regulation of the reimbursement rate (reference pricing or similar systems) on price dynamics, corresponding to pharmacy sales, in the generic drug market. The available evidence indicates that price-cap regulation leads to a levelling off of generic prices at a higher level than would occur in the absence of this regulation. Reference pricing systems cause an obvious and almost compulsory reduction in the consumer price of all pharmaceuticals subject to this system, to a varying degree in different countries and periods, the reduction being greater for originator-branded drugs than for generics. In several countries with a reference pricing system, it was observed that generics with a consumer price lower than the reference price do not undergo price reductions until the reference price is reduced, even when there are other lower-priced generics on the market (absence of price competition below the reference price). Beyond the price reduction forced by the price-cap and/or reference pricing regulation itself, the entry of new generic competitors is useful for lowering the real transaction price of purchases made by pharmacies (dynamic price competition at ex-factory level), although this effect is weaker or non-significant for official ex-factory prices and consumer prices in some countries. When maximum reimbursement systems such as reference pricing or similar types are applied, pharmacies are seen to receive large discounts on the price they pay for the pharmaceuticals, although these discounts are not transferred to the consumer price. The percentage discount offered to pharmacies in a country that uses a price-cap system combined with reference pricing is positively and significantly related to the number of generic competitors in the market for the pharmaceutical (dynamic price competition at ex-factory level).
The Simple Math of Royalties and Drug Competition During the 180-Day Generic Exclusivity Period

Keith M Drake,Thomas G McGuire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhae001

2024-02-23

Journal of Competition Law & Economics

Abstract:Abstract In drug patent litigation settlements, the plaintiff brand commonly licenses the defendant generic to sell before patent expiry. Some agreements require the generic to pay the brand royalties. Despite the superficial flow of payments, royalty terms may function as part of an anticompetitive “reverse payment” made to the generic in exchange for delayed entry. Typically, the brand launches its own authorized generic (AG) during the first-to-file generic’s 180-day exclusivity period so initially there are two generic competitors. A royalty structure that deters the brand’s AG launch reduces the number of entrants to one, conveying net value to the generic by allowing it to capture the entire generic market, potentially inducing it to delay its entry. Royalties usually have no place in a brand–generic agreement between rational actors. However, our simple model shows that when royalties are conditioned on the brand’s AG launch, a range of royalty rates exists that conveys net value to the generic by deterring the brand from rationally introducing an AG. Royalty terms that are conditioned on the brand’s AG launch thus raise a red flag that the agreement is a pay-for-delay. Although the numbers are small, publicly available materials on industry experience corroborate this conclusion.

economics,law
Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name medication use: A database study of US health insurance claims

Rishi J. Desai,Ameet Sarpatwari,Sara Dejene,Nazleen F. Khan,Joyce Lii,James R. Rogers,Sarah K. Dutcher,Saeid Raofi,Justin Bohn,John G. Connolly,Michael A. Fischer,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Joshua J. Gagne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002763

2019-03-13

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:<div><p>by Rishi J. Desai, Ameet Sarpatwari, Sara Dejene, Nazleen F. Khan, Joyce Lii, James R. Rogers, Sarah K. Dutcher, Saeid Raofi, Justin Bohn, John G. Connolly, Michael A. Fischer, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Joshua J. Gagne</p>Background <p>To the extent that outcomes are mediated through negative perceptions of generics (the nocebo effect), observational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand-name drugs. We used authorized generic (AG) products, which are identical in composition and appearance to brand-name products but are marketed as generics, as a control group to address this bias in an evaluation aiming to compare the effectiveness of generic versus brand medications.</p> Methods and findings <p>For commercial health insurance enrollees from the US, administrative claims data were derived from 2 databases: (1) Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (years: 2004–2013) and (2) Truven MarketScan (years: 2003–2015). For a total of 8 drug products, the following groups were compared using a cohort study design: (1) patients switching from brand-name products to AGs versus generics, and patients initiating treatment with AGs versus generics, where AG use proxied brand-name use, addressing negative perception bias, and (2) patients initiating generic versus brand-name products (bias-prone direct comparison) and patients initiating AG versus brand-name products (negative control). Using Cox proportional hazards regression after 1:1 propensity-score matching, we compared a composite cardiovascular endpoint (for amlodipine, amlodipine-benazepril, and quinapril), non-vertebral fracture (for alendronate and calcitonin), psychiatric hospitalization rate (for sertraline and escitalopram), and insulin initiation (for glipizide) between the groups. Inverse variance meta-analytic methods were used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each comparison between the 2 databases. Across 8 products, 2,264,774 matched pairs of patients were included in the comparisons of AGs versus generics. A majority (12 out of 16) of the clinical endpoint estimates showed similar outcomes between AGs and generics. Among the other 4 estimates that did have significantly different outcomes, 3 suggested improved outcomes with generics and 1 favored AGs (patients switching from amlodipine brand-name: HR [95% CI] 0.92 [0.88–0.97]). The comparison between generic and brand-name initiators involved 1,313,161 matched pairs, and no differences in outcomes were noted for alendronate, calcitonin, glipizide, or quinapril. We observed a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint with generics versus brand-name products for amlodipine and amlodipine-benazepril (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84–0.99] and 0.84 [0.76–0.94], respectively). For escitalopram and sertraline, we observed higher rates of psychiatric hospitalizations with generics (HR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01–1.10] and 1.07 [1.01–1.14], respectively). The negative control comparisons also indicated potentially higher rates of similar magnitude with AG compared to brand-name initiation for escitalopram and sertraline (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.98–1.13] and 1.11 [1.05–1.18], respectively), suggesting that the differences observed between brand and generic users in these outcomes are likely explained by either residual confounding or generic perception bias. Limitations of this study include potential residual confounding due to the unavailability of certain clinical parameters in administrative claims data and the inability to evaluate surrogate outcomes, such as immediate changes in blood pressure, upon switching from brand products to generics.</p> Conclusions <p>In this study, we observed that use of generics was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to use of brand-name products. These results could help in promoting educational interventions aimed at increasing patient and provider confidence in the ability of generic medicines to manage chronic diseases.</p></div>

medicine, general & internal
Estimating Equilibrium in Health Insurance Exchanges: Price Competition and Subsidy Design under the ACA

Pietro Tebaldi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdae020

2024-02-22

Abstract:Abstract Regulations to design private yet publicly sponsored health insurance markets are increasingly adopted in many OECD countries. Here I combine data and economic theory to analyze the interaction between insurers’ competition and the design of premium subsidies in determining equilibrium outcomes. My empirical model includes adverse selection, rich heterogeneity in preferences for vertically and horizontally differentiated plans and accommodates alternative assumptions on pricing conduct. In the context of the Affordable Care Act in the US, I estimate the joint distribution of preferences and expected cost using Californian administrative records on 3.7 million plan choices between 2014-2017, combined with plan and survey data on medical claims. An empirical horse race between conduct assumptions favors oligopoly pricing over perfect competition. Considering alternative subsidy designs shows that, in equilibrium, shifting subsidy generosity toward the “young invincibles” would lower premiums for all enrollees while increasing enrollment and profits.

economics
Effects of Competition on Insurance Contract Formation

Michael R. Powers,Joseph Qiu,April Shen,Zhan Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10920277.2016.1191995

2016-01-01

North American Actuarial Journal

Abstract:For an insurance transaction between a single risk-averse buyer and single risk-neutral seller with positive transaction costs, it is well known that the buyer will prefer a policy contract with an ordinary deductible. More detailed results demonstrate the Pareto optimality of an insurance contract characterized by a deductible (followed by coinsurance) for a single risk-averse buyer and single risk-averse seller. In the present work, we employ a market-game model to solve for the equilibrium insurance contract. This formulation, which approximates the behavior of excess property insurance and property catastrophe reinsurance markets, reveals that the equilibrium policy is described by full insurance up to a given policy limit, with no deductible or coinsurance. Our analysis shows further that this solution persists regardless of the numbers of buyers and sellers in the market, and in particular that the market-game equilibrium does not converge to a Pareto-optimal result because of boundary constraints on the number of sellers. Finally, we test our price-formation mechanism against an important generalization, and find that the policy-limit contract persists.
The effects of competition on premiums: using United Healthcare's 2015 entry into Affordable Care Act's marketplaces as an instrumental variable

Cagdas Agirdas,Robert J Krebs,Masato Yano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133117000263

Abstract:One goal of the Affordable Care Act is to increase insurance coverage by improving competition and lowering premiums. To facilitate this goal, the federal government enacted online marketplaces in the 395 rating areas spanning 34 states that chose not to establish their own state-run marketplaces. Few multivariate regression studies analyzing the effects of competition on premiums suffer from endogeneity, due to simultaneity and omitted variable biases. However, United Healthcare's decision to enter these marketplaces in 2015 provides the researcher with an opportunity to address this endogeneity problem. Exploiting the variation caused by United Healthcare's entry decision as an instrument for competition, we study the impact of competition on premiums during the first 2 years of these marketplaces. Combining panel data from five different sources and controlling for 12 variables, we find that one more insurer in a rating area leads to a 6.97% reduction in the second-lowest-priced silver plan premium, which is larger than the estimated effects in existing literature. Furthermore, we run a threshold analysis and find that competition's effects on premiums become statistically insignificant if there are four or more insurers in a rating area. These findings are robust to alternative measures of premiums, inclusion of a non-linear term in the regression models and a county-level analysis.
Public entry and private prices: New evidence from Indian pharmaceutical markets

Chirantan Chatterjee,Samarth Gupta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.01.029

IF: 2

2024-02-11

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

Abstract:How do private firms respond to the entry of a vertically differentiated public firm? Answering this question can help design policies to balance redistribution against private-sector investment. In this paper, we study the pricing strategies of private-sector pharmacies after the entry of public-private dispensaries which sell discounted generic drugs. Public firm attracts away the quality agnostic consumers. The response of the private sector then depends on the underlying preferences of the residual market, composed of quality conscious consumers. We find that for drugs where this residual consumer is price sensitive, retail and wholesale prices in private firms decline in response to a shrinking market. For anti-cancer drugs, however, where quality conscious consumers are less likely to engage in price-shopping behavior, the private retailers increase prices which translate upstream as well. We also find that ex ante concentration of private players amplifies this impact. We conclude with some policy implications.

economics
Switching Cost, Network Externality and Platform Competition

Wei He,Mingzhi Li,Jie Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2022.11.037

IF: 3.399

2023-01-01

International Review of Economics & Finance

Abstract:With the presence of both switching cost and network externality, this paper builds a two-stage model for competition between two platforms. In stage one, an incumbent platform controls the market as a monopolist and sets a price to acquire a user base. In stage two, a new platform enters the market to compete against the incumbent. We consider a non-strategic competitor with a free product in the benchmark model and also extend the model to allow for a strategic competitor. Our main results show: (1) When the switching cost is relatively high and the network externality is relatively low, the first mover adopts a closed strategy by maintaining a high price in stage two and harvesting profits from its original users. (2) When the switching cost is relatively low and the network externality is relatively high, the first mover adopts an open strategy by setting a low price to acquire more users in stage two, and the first-mover advantage based on the presence of switching cost will become ineffective. Our work rationalizes the coexistence of high competition and high concentration in a market with strong network externality, and thus provides a reasonable explanation for the existing paradox: even though the internet industry is much more competitive than traditional industries, the concentration level of internet industry is still higher than that of traditional industries.

Can health insurance coverage explain the generic competition paradox?

Competition Between Brand-Name and Generics--analysis on Pricing of Brand-Name Pharmaceutical.

The price premium of generic to brand-names and pharmaceutical price index

An empirical study of the impact of generic drug competition on drug market prices in China

Pseudo-Generic Products and Barriers to Entry in Pharmaceutical Markets

Competition in prescription drug markets: the roles of trademarks, advertising, and generic names

The Impact of Generic Drug Entry on Market Shares and Prices of Brand-Name Drugs– Evidence from Chinese Pharmaceutical Market

Brand vs. Generic: Addressing Non-Adherence, Secular Trends, and Non-Overlap

Strategic behavior and entry deterrence by branded drug firms: the case of authorized generic drugs

Switching Costs, Brand Premia and Behavioral Pricing in the Pharmaceutical Market

Generic Drugs in the United States: Policies to Address Pricing and Competition

Decreasing utilization and increasing prices of brand-name oral contraceptive pills: Implications to societal costs and market competition

Continuing trends in U.S. brand-name and generic drug competition

Impact of European pharmaceutical price regulation on generic price competition: a review

The Simple Math of Royalties and Drug Competition During the 180-Day Generic Exclusivity Period

Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name medication use: A database study of US health insurance claims

Estimating Equilibrium in Health Insurance Exchanges: Price Competition and Subsidy Design under the ACA

Effects of Competition on Insurance Contract Formation

The effects of competition on premiums: using United Healthcare's 2015 entry into Affordable Care Act's marketplaces as an instrumental variable

Public entry and private prices: New evidence from Indian pharmaceutical markets

Switching Cost, Network Externality and Platform Competition