, Volume 22, Supplement 2, pp 15–24 | Cite as

Are the economics of pharmaceutical research and development changing?

Productivity, patents and political pressures
  • Henry Grabowski
Review Article


Pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) competition in the 1980s and 1990s was characterised by rising R&D expenditures, favourable returns to innovators and the introduction of many new classes of drugs with high social benefits. However, in the past 3 years, the number of new drug introductions has been well below the historical trend, while the cost per new drug continues to increase. In addition to lagging R&D productivity, the industry has been characterised by other economic and policy uncertainties. These include a wave of early patent challenges and growing political pressure to contain pharmaceutical expenditures. This paper examines the consequences of these developments.


Patent Protection Branded Product Prior Authorisation Generic Firm Drug Introduction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Grabowski HG, Vernon J, DiMasi JA. Returns on research and development for 1990s new drug introductions. Pharmcoeconomics 2002; 20 Suppl. 3: 11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scherer FM. The link between gross profitability and pharmaceutical R&D spending. Health Aff 2001; 20 (5): 136–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ, 2003; 22: 141–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Med Ad News, April issue, various yearsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baily MN. Research and development costs and returns: the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. J Pol Econ, 1972; 80: 70–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scherer FM. Technological maturity and waning economic growth. Arts and Sciences, Fall 1978; 1: 7–11Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tollman P, Guy P, Altschuler J, et al. A revolution in R&D: the impact of genomics. Boston: The Boston Consulting Group, June 2001Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landers P. Drug industry’s big push into technology falls short. Wall Street Journal, Feb 24, 2004Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office. How increased competition from generic drugs has affected prices and returns in the pharmaceutical industry. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1998Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America [PhRMA]. Pharmaceutical industry profile 2003. Washington, DC: PhRMA, 2003. p. 62Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulman S, Healy EM, Lasagna L, editors. PBMs: reshaping the pharmaceutical distribution network. New York: Haworth Press, 1998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. Longer patents for increased generic competition: The Waxman-Hatch Act after one decade. PharmcoEconomics 1996; 10 Suppl2: 110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Federal Trade Commission. Generic entry prior to patent expiration: an FTC study. Washington, DC: FTC, July 2002Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bulow J. The gaming of pharmaceutical patents, forthcoming in Jaffe AB, Stern S, and Lerner J, eds. Innovation policy and the economy, Volume 4, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bear Stearns. Attack of the clones: 18 years post Waxman-Hatch, New York; Bear Stearns, October 2, 2002Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emmons W, Nimgade A. Burroughs Wellcome and AZT, Case 9-792-004. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School, 1991Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grabowski H. Comment, in Triplett JE, ed. Measuring the Prices of Medical Treatment, Washington: Brookings Institution, 1999, 190–195Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pauly MV. Medicare drug coverage and moral hazard. HealthAffairs, 2004, 22 No. 1: 113–122Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Fiscal year 2002 mid session Review of Medicaid spending projections. Washington, DC: CMS, 2002Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, et al. Medicaid spending growth: a 50 state update for FY 2003. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Washington, DC, January 2003Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang YR, Pauly MV and Lin YA. Impact of Maine’s Medicaid drug formulary change on non-Medicaid markets: spillover effects of a restrictive drug formulary. Am J of Managed Care, 2003; 9 [10]: 686–696Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bernasek C, Harringtone C, Ramchand R, et al. Florida’s Medicaid Prescription Drug Benefit: A Case Study. Washington: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. February 2002Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendelson D. State medicaid Rx cost containment, Washington, Health Strategies Consulting, May 2, 2002Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Danzon PM, Ketcham JD. Reference pricing of pharmaceuticals and Medicare: Evidence from Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER] Working Paper No. W10007, Cambridge, MA, October 2003Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bernasek C, et al. Case study: Michigan’s Medicaid Prescription Drug Benefit. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Washington, DC, January 2003Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations