Blog Post

The issue of U.S. prescription drug prices

What’s at stake: Americans spend a lot on prescription drugs, more per capita than any other country by far. Individual cases of sharp price increases - like the case of the EpiPen - have recently driven attention to this issue. We report review contributions on this topic.

By: Date: August 24, 2017 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

The Hutchins Center and Center on Health Policy at Brookings has a good explainer of the facts. In 2015, the U.S. spent $325 billion on retail prescription drugs, equivalent to 1.8% of GDP, or 10% of total national health expenditures. Spending has grown considerably since the 1980s (Figure 1) and the U.S. spends substantially more per capita than other countries. According to the OECD, the U.S. spent $1,112 on retail pharmaceuticals per person in 2014, while the next highest spender was Canada, at $772, followed by Germany at $741 and France at $659 (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Timothy Taylor at Conversable Economist quotes a study by Dabora, Turaga, and Schulman in the Journal of the American Medical Association, who provide a useful diagram summarizing the US prescription drug market (Figure 3). They notice that there is a fairly high amount of concentration at a number of places in this market schematic. The US distributor market is highly consolidated, with 3 companies accounting for more than 85% of market share: AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson. The retail pharmacy market can be divided into 3 major categories: chain pharmacies and mass merchants with pharmacies, independent pharmacies, and mail-order pharmacies. The 15 largest firms, including CVS, Walgreens, Express Scripts, and Walmart, generated more than $270 billion in revenue in 2015 through retail and mail-order pharmacy, representing approximately 74% of retail prescription revenues.

Figure 3

In another paper published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, Kesselheim, Avorn, and Sarpatwari show that list prices for the top 20 highest-revenue-grossing drugs are much higher in the US than the United Kingdom, and even post-rebate prices are higher in the US than in Canada, France, and Germany (Table 1). They argue that the higher per capita prescription drug spending in the US is largely driven by brand-name drug prices that have been increasing in recent years at rates far beyond the consumer price index. They argue that the most important factor allowing manufacturers to set high drug prices is market exclusivity, protected by monopoly rights awarded upon Food and Drug Administration approval and by patents. The availability of generic drugs after this exclusivity period is the main means of reducing prices in the US, but access to them may be delayed by numerous business and legal strategies. Although prices are often justified by the high cost of drug development, Kesselheim et al. argue that there is no evidence of an association between R&D costs and prices and rather prescription drugs are priced primarily on the basis of what the market will bear.

At the heart of the pricing question there is tension between two competing aims: on one hand, giving pharmaceutical companies financial incentives to innovate and produce new drugs; on the other, keeping drug prices as low as possible. Timothy Taylor points out five takeaways from the literature on high prices. First, Prices are rising for brand-name drugs, and competition between brand-name drugs doesn’t seem to bring down prices. Second, while competition from generic drugs often does help to bring down prices, that competition faces a number of limits, particularly when a generic for a relatively rare condition has a monopoly. Third, the big government purchasers of drugs, Medicare and Medicaid face legislative limits in encouraging or requiring the purchase of cheaper drugs or generic drugs. Fourth, prescription benefit managers are typically paid according to the total revenues of the drugs they manage, and thus lack a strong incentive to negotiate for lower prices. Fifth, state-level laws also tend to protect brand-name drugs by hindering competition from generics and lastly, large self-insured employers have traditionally felt that the potential cost savings from negotiating hard over drug prices, or pushing for alternative and cheaper drugs, wasn’t worth the risk of a bad public relations episode.

Gilbert Berdine at the Mises Institute argues that the “outrageous” drug prices that are often in the news should not be seen as an example of failure by free-market capitalism, but rather as an example of how anticompetitive government regulations break functioning markets in favor of rent seeking corporations. Monopoly privilege enables pricing that extracts the last bit of disposable income from customers, but monopoly cannot, by itself, extract more from a customer than the customer can pay. The final policy element necessary for the outrageous prices is public financing, intended as the the fact that the cost of the drug is paid the public. With public financing, pharmaceutical companies stop making pricing decisions based on the economics of affordability and pursue rent seeking behaviors, and rent seekers try to acquire political privilege rather than compete by innovation.

Doug Bandow at the Cato Institute laments that the comparison to other countries is misleading because those countries benefit from spillovers from American research. He argues that if Congress imposed similar controls in America, many promising new drugs simply wouldn’t be developed because there is no foreign market upon which the U.S. could free ride. The congressional debate so far has focused on adding a drug benefit to Medicare to assist the elderly. But both houses of Congress have also passed bills, set to go to a joint conference committee, to allow importation of U.S. drugs from other countries. This “reimportation” strategy is superficially appealing, Bandow argues, but what its supporters really desire is price controls and their legislation would effectively subject U.S. firms to foreign restrictions.

Patent monopolies have long been used as a mechanism for financing innovation and research, but they can also provide incentives for a wide-range of rent-seeking behaviors. A 2015 report by the Centre for Economic Policy Research assessed the cost associated with one form of rent-seeking, the mismarketing of drugs. This can occur when a drug company seeks narrow Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a drug then promotes its use for other purposes. In addition, companies may conceal evidence that their drugs are less effective than claimed or possibly even harmful. The authors of the report find that in the case of just five drugs, this form of rent-seeking has resulted in cumulative costs of morbidity and mortality of $382 billion.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article

Blog Post

The Iran nuclear deal crisis: Lessons from the 1982 transatlantic dispute over the Siberian gas pipeline

A US president taking a unilateral decision that affects European interests; European policymakers outraged at US interference in their affairs; European businesses fearing losing access to some international markets – sound familiar? This is the story of a crisis that took place in 1982 regarding the Siberian gas pipeline project; its outcome should inspire optimism in the Europeans’ capacity to counteract Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Iranian nuclear deal.

By: Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol and Angela Romano Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 23, 2018
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The EU should not sing to Trump’s tune on trade

The US threat of trade sanctions has put the EU in a difficult position. Nevertheless, the EU must respond decisively – not just to protect its own interests but those of the multilateral trading system, and to demonstrate to the US and other partners that trade is not a zero-sum game.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: May 17, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Trade war: How tensions have risen between China, the EU and the US

The multilateral trading system has been challenged by unilateralist measures and subsequent threats of retaliation. We collect the main events that have shaped the current situation and show which trade flows have been and will potentially be affected by the various measures. We end by discussing possible scenarios moving forward for the EU.

By: Francesco Chiacchio Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 15, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

European income inequality begins to fall once again

Following almost a decade of relative stability, income inequality within the EU recorded a sizeable decline in 2016, reaching its lowest value since 1989. The fall of both within- and between-country inequality contributed to the 2016 reduction in overall EU inequality.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 30, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Germany’s export-oriented economic model is caught in a US-Chinese squeeze

The new Merkel government has to reduce the dependencies on exports by stimulating domestic growth forces in Germany and Europe. At the same time, Berlin should push for a more ambitious national and European innovation policy as well as a robust European foreign trade policy.

By: Sebastian Heilmann and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 30, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Why this round of U.S. protectionism is different

Although it is not the first time that the world has been caught in the China-U.S. crossfire, this round of U.S. protectionist moves against China is very different, and more worrisome than past ones. They involve a much larger number of products and in that they also target the global competition for U.S. companies and not only the U.S. market. It is in no way just a poker game launched by the U.S. to reduce its bilateral trade deficit with China, but the herald of an era of China-U.S. strategical competition.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 24, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Trade Wars: what are they good for?

Following the US announcements in early March of their intent to impose steel and aluminum tariffs, and the subsequent threats from China to retaliate with their own tariffs, the global trade picture remains uncertain. The IMF and the World Bank Spring Meetings set off amid US-Japan bilateral negotiations and Trump’s hot-and-cold approach to the TPP. This week we review blogs’ views on tensions over international trade and how they can impact world economic growth.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 23, 2018
Read article More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: EU risks US tariff pain in standing by the WTO

As global trade war continues to unfold, Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined for this Director's Cut of 'The Sound of Economics' podcast by Bernd Lange MEP, chair of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), to discuss Europe's options.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: April 18, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

How Should the EU Position Itself in a Global Trade War?

It is high time for the EU to work on more than just wishful thinking in response to the US challenge to global trade. With the first cracks appearing in the multilateral system, it will be difficult for the EU to maintain a middle course between the US and China.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: April 5, 2018
Read article More on this topic

External Publication

Europe in a new world order

The EU is a relatively open economy and has benefited from the multilateral system. We argue that the EU should defend its strategic interests. The Singapore ruling has offered a useful clarification on trade policy. Addressing internal imbalances would also increase external credibility. Finally, strengthening Europe's social model would provide a counter-model to protectionist temptations.

By: Maria Demertzis, Guntram B. Wolff and André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 26, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Will U.S. tax reform lure U.S. companies away from China?

What will be the results of the changes to the U.S. tax system in China? Will the new U.S. corporate tax rate cause Chinese firms to shift their operations to the U.S. to enjoy the new tax benefits? Read Alicia García-Herrero's opinion on President Donald Trump’s tax reform.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 26, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Which sectors would be most vulnerable to EU-US trade war?

As the US administration imposes new tariffs on steel and aluminium and considers further protectionist measures, we look at bilateral trade flows between the US and the EU28 across different types of products.

By: Francesco Chiacchio Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 15, 2018
Load more posts