Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 45–60 | Cite as

Entry time effects and follow-on drug competition

  • Luiz Flavio Andrade
  • Catherine Sermet
  • Sylvain Pichetti
Original Paper

Abstract

Pharmaceutical firms have been criticized for concentrating efforts of R&D on the so-called me-too or follow-on drugs. There have been many comments for and against the dissemination of these incremental innovations but few papers have broached the subject from an econometric point of view, possibly because identification of me-too or follow-on drugs is not so obvious. This paper focuses on the impact of entry order on follow-on drug competition in the French market between the years 2001 and 2007. More precisely, this study examines the effects on market share of first entrants in the follow-on drug market and how this possible competitive advantage changes over time. First results are coherent with theoretical microeconomic issues concerning the importance of being first. We find evidence that first movers in the follow-on drug market have the ability to capture and maintain greater market share for a long period of time. The hierarchical market position of follow-on drugs does not seem to be affected by generic drug emergence. From a dynamic perspective, our analysis shows that market share is positively correlated with the ability of follow-on drugs to set prices higher than the average follow-on drug prices in a specific therapeutic class, which means that market power remains considerably important for first movers. Moreover, we found that the optimum level of innovation to maximize market share is the highest one.

Keywords

Incremental innovation Follow-on drugs Entry timing Market share 

JEL Classification

I11 I18 C5 L65 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Izabela Jelovac, Marc Perronin, and Aurélie Pierre for their precious comments. The authors are very thankful to Nicolas Célant for his collaboration in the construction of the dataset.

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal, R., Gort, M.: First-mover advantage and the speed of competitive entry 1887–1986. J. Law Econ. 44, 161–177 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angell, M.: The truth about the drug companies. In: Chadha, A., Blomqvist, A. (eds.) Patent races, “me-too” drugs, and generics: a developing world perspective. Random House, New York. National University of Singapore. Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 0513 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banbury, C.M., Mitchell, W.: The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival. Strateg. Manag. J. 16, 161–182 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavalla, D.: Therapeutic switching: a new strategic approach to enhance R&D productivity. IDrugs 8(11), 914–918 (2005)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chadha, A., Blomqvist, A.: Patent races, “me-too” drugs, and generics: a developing world perspective. National University of Singapore. Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 0513 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crawford, G.S., Shum, M.: Uncertainty and learning in pharmaceutical demand. Econometrica 73, 1137–1173 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CNAMTS.: Points de repère. Comparaisons européennes sur huit classes de médicaments, 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, J., Cabanilla, L., Sosnov, J.: Role of follow-on drugs and indications on the WHO Essential Drug List. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 31, 585–592 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coscelli, A., Shum, M.: An empirical model of learning and patient spillovers in new drug entry. J. Econom. 122, 213–246 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa-Font, J., Rudisil, C., Mossialios, E.: Diffusion of health technologies: evidence from the pharmaceutical sector. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 18, 53–445 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Danzon, P.M., Chao, L.W.: Does regulation drive out competition in pharmaceutical markets? J. Law Econ. 43, 311–358 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Danzon, P.M., Towse, A.: Differential pricing for pharmaceuticals: reconciling access, R&D and patents. Int. J. Health Care Financ. Econ. 3, 183–205 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Frutos, M.A., Ornaghi, C., Siotis, G.: Competition in the pharmaceutical industry: how do quality differences shape advertising strategies? J. Health Econ. 32, 268–285 (2013)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deeds, D.L., Hill, C.W.: Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 11, 41–55 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DiMasi, J.A., Paquette, C.: The economics of follow-on drug research and development trends in entry rates and the timing of development. Pharmacoeconomics 22, 1–14 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellison, G., Ellison, S.F.: Strategic entry deterrence and the behavior of pharmaceutical incumbents prior to patent expiration. NBER Working Papers 13069, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eron Jr, J.J.: Antiretroviral therapy: new drugs, formulations, ideas, and strategies. Top HIV Med. 17, 146–150 (2009)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank, R.G.: Prescription drug prices: why do some pay more than others do? Health Aff. 20, 115–128 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gagne, J.J., Choudhry, N.K.: How many “me-too” drugs is too many? JAMA 305, 711–712 (2011)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grabowski, H.: Patents, innovation and access to new pharmaceuticals. J. Int. Econ. Law 5, 849–860 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grandfils, N., Paris, V., Sermet, C.: Les laboratoires pharmaceutiques face à l’arrivée des génériques : quelles stratégies pour quels effets ? Questions d’Economie de la Santé. IRDES. 84 (2004). http://www.irdes.fr/Publications/Qes/Qes84.pdf
  22. 22.
    Hall, R.E.: The relation between price and marginal cost in US industry. J. Polit. Econ. 96, 921–947 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harris, C., Vickers, J.: Patent races and the persistence of monopoly. J. Ind. Econ. 33, 461–481 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herrmann, A., Gassmann, O., Eisert, U.: An empirical study of the antecedents for radical product innovations and capabilities for transformation. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 24, 92–120 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hollis, A.: The importance of being first: evidence from Canadian generic pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 11, 723–734 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hollis, A.:. Me-too drugs: is there a problem? WHO report (2004). Availabe at http://www.irdes.fr/EspaceAnglais/Publications/IrdesPublications/QES099.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2011
  27. 27.
    Johannesson, M., Lundin, D.: The impact of physician preferences and patient habits on the diffusion of new drugs. In: SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, vol. 460 (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kanavos, P., Reinhardt, U.: Reference pricing for drugs: is it compatible with United States health care? Health Aff. 22, 16–30 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kettler, H.E.: Competition Through Innovation, Innovation Through Competition. Office of Health Economics, London (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kleinke, J.D.: The price of progress: prescription drugs in the health care market. Health Aff. 20, 43–60 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kwong, W.: An investigation of first-mover advantage in pharmaceutical advertising. In: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Economics of Population Health: Inaugural Conference of the American Society of Health Economists, TBA, Madison (2011). http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p90141_index.html. Accessed 25 March 2011
  32. 32.
    Lundin, D.: Moral hazard in physician prescription behavior. J. Health Econ. 19, 639–662 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mansfield, E.: Patents and innovation: an empirical study. Manag. Sci. 32, 173–181 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McKinnon, R., Worzel, K., Rotz, G., Williams, H.: Crisis? What crisis? A fresh diagnosis of Big Pharma’s R&D productivity crunch. Marakon Associates, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mosca, I., Pomp, M., Shestalova, V.: Market share and price in Dutch home care: market power or quality? De Econ. 158, 61–79 (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mrazek, M.: The impact of differing regulatory frameworks on post-patent pharmaceutical markets in the United Kingdom, United States and Germany 1990 to 1997. PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Sciences (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nguyen-Kim, L., Or, Z., Paris, V., Sermet, C.: The politics of drug reimbursement in England, France and Germany. Questions d’Economie de la santé, IRDES 99 (2005). Available at http://www.irdes.fr/EspaceAnglais/Publications/IrdesPublications/QES178.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2011
  38. 38.
    Regan, T.L.: Generic entry, price competition, and market segmentation in the prescription drug market. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 26, 930–948 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sams-Dodd, F.: Research and market strategy: how choice of drug discovery approach can affect market position. Drug Discov. Today 12, 314–318 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schweitzer, S.O.: Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy. Oxford University Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Serra-Sastre, V., McGuire, A.: Diffusion of health technologies: evidence from the pharmaceutical sector. In: Costa-Font, J, Courbage, C, McGuire, A (eds.) The Economics of New Health Technologies, pp. 53–69. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Serrao, E., Odde, S., Ramkumar, K., Neamati, N.: Raltegravir, elvitegravir, and metoogravir: the birth of “me-too” HIV-1 integrase inhibitors. Retrovirology 6, 25 (2009)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sloan, F.A., Hsieh, C.R.: Incentives, Competition, and Cost-Benefit Analysis in International Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sorasith, C., Pichetti, S., Cartier, T., Célant; N., Bergua, L., Sermet, C.: Déterminants de l’écart de prix entre médicaments similaires et le premier entrant d’une classe thérapeutique. Document de travail n. 43 IRDES (2012)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spinewine, A., Swine, C., Dean, F.B., Tulkens, P.M., Wilmotte, L., Lorant, V.: Appropriateness of use of medicines in elderly inpatients: qualitative study. Br. Med. J. 9, 331–935 (2005)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Virts, J.R, Weston, J.F.: Returns to research and development in the US pharmaceutical industry. Manag. Decis. Econ. 1, 103–111 (1980)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wertheimer, A.I., Santella, T.M.: Pharmaceutical Evolution: The Advantages of Incremental Innovation in Drug Development. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. (2009). http://cei.org/issue-analysis/2009/04/07/pharmaceutical-evolution
  48. 48.
    Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, USA (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luiz Flavio Andrade
    • 1
    • 2
  • Catherine Sermet
    • 2
  • Sylvain Pichetti
    • 2
  1. 1.GATE-CNRS, University of Lyon 2LyonFrance
  2. 2.IRDES-ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations