Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:45:32.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fairness in drug prices: do economists think differently from the public?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2018

Antonio J. Trujillo ,
Taruja Karmarkar ,
Caleb Alexander ,
William Padula ,
Jeremy Greene  and
Gerard Anderson
Antonio J. Trujillo
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, MD, USA
Taruja Karmarkar*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, MD, USA
Caleb Alexander
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, MD, USA
William Padula
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, MD, USA
Jeremy Greene
Affiliation:
Professor of Medicine and History of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, MD, USA
Gerard Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, MD, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Taruja Karmarkar, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, MD, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using dual-entitlement theory as the guide, we conducted a survey of economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research asking them a series of questions about the fairness of drug prices in the United States. Public opinion surveys have repeatedly shown that the public perceives drug prices to be unfair, but economists trained in laws of supply and demand may have different perceptions. Three hundred and ten senior economists responded to our survey. Forty-five percent agreed that drug prices were unfair when people, specifically low-income individuals, could not afford their prescription medications. Sixty-five percent oppose a dollar threshold, or upper limit, on drug prices. The economists recommend the most promising policy change would be to provide the government additional negotiating power and price controls would moderately impact investment in pharmaceutical research and development.

Keywords

fairnessdual-entitlementdrug pricesopinion survey
Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 18 - 29
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, KJ (1963) Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. The American Economic Review 53(5), 941–973.Google Scholar
Barlas, S (2014) Are specialty drug prices destroying insurers and hurting consumers?: a number of efforts are under way to reduce price pressure. Pharmacy and Therapeutics 39(8), 563–566.Google Scholar
Bolton, LE, Warlop, L Alba, JW (2003) Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness. Journal of Consumer Research 29, 471–491.Google Scholar
Bundorf, K Pauly, MV (2006) Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured? Journal of Health Economics 25, 650–673.Google Scholar
Cameron, A, Ewen, M, Ross-Degna, D, Ball, D Laing, R (2009) Medicine prices, availability, and affordability in 36 developing and middle-income countries: a secondary analysis. The Lancet 373(9659), 240–249.Google Scholar
Campbell, MC (1999) Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research 36, 187–199.Google Scholar
Carey, R Harvey, T (2015) Wyden Press Conference Remarks on Investigation into Gilead’s Pricing Hepatitis Drug Sovaldi. https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/wyden-press-conference-remarks-on-investigation-into-gileads-pricing-of-hepatitis-drug-sovaldi [4 September 2017].Google Scholar
Chhatwal, J, Kanwal, F, Roberts, M Dunn, M (2015) Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of hepatitis C virus treatment with sofosbuvir and ledipasvir in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine 162, 397–406.Google Scholar
Dekhili, S Achabou, MA (2013) Price fairness in the case of green products: enterprises’ policies and consumers’ perceptions. Business Strategy and the Environment 22(1), 547–560.Google Scholar
Dickson, PR Kalapurakal, R (1994) The use and perceived fairness of price-setting rules in the bulk electricity market. Journal of Economic Psychology 15, 427–448.Google Scholar
DiMasi, JA, Grabowski, HG Hansen, RW (2016) Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health Economics 47, 20–33.Google Scholar
Fellows, GK Hollis, A (2013) Funding innovation for treatment for rare diseases: adopting a cost-based yardstick approach. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 8(180), 172–180.Google Scholar
Fleck, R (2014) Can prohibitions on “price gouging” reduce deadweight losses? International Review of Law and Economics 37, 100–107.Google Scholar
Frey, BS Pommerehne, W (1993) On the fairness of pricing – an empirical survey among the general population. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 20, 295–307.Google Scholar
Greene, JA Padula, WV (2017) Targeting unconscionable prescription-drug prices – Maryland’s anti-price-gouging law. New England Journal of Medicine 377, 101–103.Google Scholar
Hatton, TJ (2017) Public opinion on immigration in Europe: preference versus salience. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP12084. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2984780 Google Scholar
Heo, C Lee, S (2011) Influences of consumer characteristics on fairness perceptions of revenue management pricing in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality 30, 243–251.Google Scholar
Kachelmeier, SJ, Limberg, ST Schadewald, MS (1991) Fairness in markets: a laboratory investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology 12, 447–464.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D, Knetsch, JL Thaler, R (1986a), Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business 59(4), 285–300.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D, Knetsch, JL Thaler, R (1986b), Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review 76(4), 728–741.Google Scholar
Kesselheim, AS, Avorn, J Sarpatwari, A (2016) The high cost of prescription drugs in the United States: origins and prospects for reform. JAMA 316(8), 858–871.Google Scholar
Mauskopf, J, Earnshaw, S Mullins, DC (2005) Budget impact analysis: review of the state of the art. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 5(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S, Nye, P Maxwell, N (1999) Less pain, same gain: the effects of priming fairness in price negotiations. Psychology & Marketing 16, 545–562.Google Scholar
Morgan S, Grootendorst P, Lexchin J, Cunningham C and Greyson D (2011) The cost of drug development: a systematic review. Health Policy 100(1), 4–17.Google Scholar
Moses, H III, Matheson, DH, Cairns-Smith, S, George, BP, Palisch, C Dorsey, ER (2015) The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA 313(2), 174–189.Google Scholar
Murteira, S, Ghezaiel, Z, Karray, S Lamure, M (2013) Drug reformulations and repositioning in pharmaceutical industry and its impact on market access: reassessment of nomenclature. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy 1(10).Google Scholar
Neumann, PJ, Cohen, JT Weinstein, MC (2014) Updating cost-effectiveness – the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. New England Journal of Medicine 371, 796–797.Google Scholar
Neumann, PJ Weinstein, MC (2010) Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. New England Journal of Medicine 363(16), 1495–1497.Google Scholar
Pearson, S (2016) Value: can we afford to think long-term while ignoring budget impact? Health Affairs (blog) September 2. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/09/22/value-can-we-afford-to-think-long-term-while-ignoring-budget-impact/ Google Scholar
Philips, Z, Ginnelly, L, Sculpher, M, Claxton, K, Golder, S, Woolacott, N Glanville, J (2004) Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme: Executive Summaries. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals 8(36), 1–158.Google Scholar
Rotemberg, J (2008) Behavioral aspects of price setting, and their policy implications. NBER Working Paper No. 13754. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Roth, AE (2007) Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3), 37–58.Google Scholar
Schein, A (2002) Concern for fair prices in the Israeli housing market. Journal of Economic Psychology 23(2), 213–230.Google Scholar
Schuhmacher, A, Gassmann, O Hinder, M (2016) Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Translational Medicine 14(105).Google Scholar
Thaler, R (2015) Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Thorpe, C, McLean, SL, Burt, A, Stewart, M, Brown, JB, Reid, GJ Harris, S (2009) How to obtain excellent response rates when surveying physicians. Family Practice 26(1), 65–68.Google Scholar
Vaidyanathan, R Aggarwal, P (2003) Who is the fairest of them all? An attributional approach to price fairness perceptions. Journal of Business Research 56, 453–463.Google Scholar
Xia, L, Monroe, KB Cox, JL (2004) The price is unfair! Journal of Marketing 68, 1–15.Google Scholar
Yehia, BR, Schranz, AJ Umscheid, CA (2014) Treatment cascade of chronic hepatitis C virus infection in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 9(7), e101554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101554.Google Scholar