About this item:

82 Views | 72 Downloads

Author Notes:

Correspondence: David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); and, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition.

Authorship contributions: Matthew J. Higgins: Supervision, Conceptualization, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Xin Yan: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Chirantan Chatterjee: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.

We thank Tamer Abdelgawad, Maria Arbatskya, Lee Branstetter, Dana Goldman, Dietmar Harhoff, David Howard, Darius Lakdawalla, Richard Manning, Sara Markowitz, John Romley, Neeraj Sood and seminar participants at Emory University, University of Michigan, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and University of Southern California for helpful comments and suggestions.

We are also grateful to Maryann Feldman and two anonymous referees. We thank IMS Health Incorporated, now IQVIA, for their generous support and access to their data.

Disclosures: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

None declared

Keywords:

  • Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  • Labeling
  • Regulatory shocks
  • Drug safety label changes
  • Pharmaceutical innovation
  • Aggregate demand

Unpacking the effects of adverse regulatory events: Evidence from pharmaceutical relabeling

Tools:

Journal Title:

Research Policy

Volume:

Volume 50, Number 1

Publisher:

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

We provide causal evidence that regulation induced product shocks significantly impact aggregate demand and firm performance in pharmaceutical markets. Event study results suggest an average loss between $569 million and $882 million. Affected products lose, on average, $186 million over their remaining effective patent life. This leaves a loss of between $383 million and $696 million attributable to declines in future innovation. Our findings complement research that shows drugs receiving expedited review are more likely to suffer from regulation induced product shocks. Thus, it appears we may be trading off quicker access to drugs today for less innovation tomorrow. Results remain robust to variation across types of relabeling, market sizes, and levels of competition.

Copyright information:

© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Export to EndNote