Starving (or Fattening) the Golden Goose?: Generic Entry and the Incentives for Early-Stage Pharmaceutical Innovation / Lee Branstetter, Chirantan Chatterjee, Matthew J. Higgins.

By:

Branstetter, Lee

Contributor(s):

Material type: Text

TextSeries: Working Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research) ; no. w20532.Publication details: Cambridge, Mass. National Bureau of Economic Research 2014.Description: 1 online resource: illustrations (black and white)Subject(s):

Online resources:

Available additional physical forms:

Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers

Abstract: Over the last decade, generic penetration in the U.S. pharmaceutical market has increased substantially, providing significant gains in consumer surplus. What impact has this rise in generic penetration had on the rate and direction of early stage pharmaceutical innovation? We explore this question using novel data sources and an empirical framework that models the flow of early-stage pharmaceutical innovations as a function of generic penetration, scientific opportunity, firm innovative capability, and additional controls. While the aggregate level of early-stage drug development activity has increased, our estimates suggest a sizable, robust, negative relationship between generic penetration and early-stage pharmaceutical research activity within therapeutic markets. A 10% increase in generic penetration is associated with a 7.9% decline in all early-stage innovations in the same therapeutic market. When we restrict our sample to first-in-class pharmaceutical innovations, we find that a 10% increase in generic penetration is associated with a 4.6% decline in early-stage innovations in the same market. Our estimated effects appear to vary across therapeutic classes in sensible ways, reflecting the differing degrees of substitution between generics and branded drugs in treating different diseases. Finally, we are able to document that with increasing generic penetration, firms in our sample are shifting their R&D activity to more biologic-based (large-molecule) products rather than chemical-based (small-molecule) products. We conclude by discussing the potential implications of our results for long-run welfare, policy, and innovation.

Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.

Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Holdings
Item type	Home library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode	Item holds
Working Paper	Biblioteca Digital	Colección NBER	nber w20532 (Browse shelf(Opens below))	Not For Loan

Total holds: 0

September 2014.

Over the last decade, generic penetration in the U.S. pharmaceutical market has increased substantially, providing significant gains in consumer surplus. What impact has this rise in generic penetration had on the rate and direction of early stage pharmaceutical innovation? We explore this question using novel data sources and an empirical framework that models the flow of early-stage pharmaceutical innovations as a function of generic penetration, scientific opportunity, firm innovative capability, and additional controls. While the aggregate level of early-stage drug development activity has increased, our estimates suggest a sizable, robust, negative relationship between generic penetration and early-stage pharmaceutical research activity within therapeutic markets. A 10% increase in generic penetration is associated with a 7.9% decline in all early-stage innovations in the same therapeutic market. When we restrict our sample to first-in-class pharmaceutical innovations, we find that a 10% increase in generic penetration is associated with a 4.6% decline in early-stage innovations in the same market. Our estimated effects appear to vary across therapeutic classes in sensible ways, reflecting the differing degrees of substitution between generics and branded drugs in treating different diseases. Finally, we are able to document that with increasing generic penetration, firms in our sample are shifting their R&D activity to more biologic-based (large-molecule) products rather than chemical-based (small-molecule) products. We conclude by discussing the potential implications of our results for long-run welfare, policy, and innovation.