Pharma Companies Argue That Lower Drug Prices Would Mean Fewer Breakthrough Drugs. Is That True?
Skip to content
Healthcare Policy Sep 2, 2020

Pharma Companies Argue That Lower Drug Prices Would Mean Fewer Breakthrough Drugs. Is That True?

Probably not, a new study suggests—as long as the price decreases are modest.

Drug innovation at a pharmaceutical company

Michael Meier

Based on the research of

David Dranove

Craig Garthwaite

Manuel I. Hermosilla

Remdesivir, the antiviral drug that’s shown promising results in treating COVID-19, costs $3,120 for a five-day regimen.

As eye-popping as that number is, it pales in comparison to many other drugs on the market, some of which have price tags that reach up to seven figures for a typical treatment course.

In the U.S., such high drug prices can limit access for many and drive up insurance costs, spurring ongoing debate: Do biopharma companies really need to charge as much as they do?

Add Insight
to your inbox.

“The industry’s response has been just as constant as the complaints,” says David Dranove, a strategy professor at Kellogg. “They say they have to cover their research costs, and if they don’t, they’ll have to cut back on research.”

In general, developing truly innovative drugs requires more research dollars than developing more incremental ones. It’s also riskier, because the odds of success are unknown. Without sufficient financial incentive, pharmaceutical companies argue, they will deliver fewer innovative drugs, which ultimately means worse health outcomes.

But is this really the case? Does less money-making potential truly lead pharma firms to cut back on innovation? It’s a critical question, given that the U.S. government leaves drug pricing largely to market forces.

“We do that as a country because we’re interested in promoting future innovation,” says Craig Garthwaite, a professor of strategy at Kellogg. Effectively, the U.S. is willing to trade off some access to drugs—due to high pricing—to secure more innovative drugs in the future.

To investigate the connection between profit and research, Dranove and Garthwaite teamed up with Manuel Hermosilla at Johns Hopkins. But instead of looking at whether reduced money-making potential prompts firms to cut back on innovation, they studied the opposite: Does the promise of higher profits lead companies to plow more money into innovative research?

Specifically, they explored how biopharma research changed following the creation of Medicare Part D, which increased prescription-drug coverage for Americans over age 65. Part D resulted in new coverage of about 5 million seniors, meaning more purchases of prescription drugs and more pharma-company profits.

While 5 million people may sound like a lot, in the context of the $400 billion U.S. pharmaceutical market, this was a “relatively modest shock,” as the researchers write. Still, the impact allowed for an effective research experiment.

They wanted to see if the expected boost in drug-manufacturer profitability resulted in truly novel therapies aimed at older patients. Or would companies play it safe by focusing development efforts on copycat versions of drugs already targeting this population, such as those treating high cholesterol?

The researchers found evidence of the latter: post-Medicare Part D, drugmakers overwhelmingly pursued new versions of existing drugs, rather than innovative products. However, this implies that converse is also true: incremental price reductions may not stifle innovation.

“When the biopharma industry says that any change to drug pricing is going to destroy the innovation engine, that’s not really true,” Garthwaite says. “Our study puts some bounds on that.”

Defining Drug Novelty

It is well established that pharmaceutical firms focus on products that they perceive as lucrative.

“Drug companies invest in areas where they think there’s demand for their developments, like any profit-maximizing firm,” Dranove says.

But critics have argued that this process doesn’t necessarily result in innovative drugs that improve social welfare. Money-making potential, the critics claim, typically pushes drugmakers to bring the third or fourth version of a drug to market rather than seek a cure for a disease we can’t currently treat, like pancreatic cancer.

To test this claim, the Kellogg researchers first had to define what counts as a pharmaceutical “novelty”—that is, what makes a drug truly innovative.

The researchers settled on a definition: “Do drugs represent new options for patients that might not otherwise exist?” Garthwaite says. Based on that line of thinking, they then examined whether clinical trials for a given drug fit the bill.

Specifically, they looked at “target-based actions” (TBAs), or what a prospective drug product actually did in the body—what biologic entity it targeted, and with what function, such as blocking a specific lipid to reduce cholesterol. More novel drugs tend either to focus on a new TBA or to use a largely unprecedented combination of multiple TBAs.

Expected Profits and Innovation

The study used pharmaceutical research data from 1997 through 2018 on over 70,000 molecules developed globally by over 4,300 biopharma companies. This time period spanned the advent of Medicare Part D, which was created as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and became effective in 2006.

This made possible a “natural experiment” on the relationship between expected profits and innovation. Starting in 2006, pharmaceutical companies would have expected an increase in profits for drugs targeting older patients, due to the increased prescription-drug coverage for this population.

The question, then, was whether that increased expected profit would yield greater innovation in drugs targeting seniors—or would companies play it safe by focusing on copycat versions of existing drugs?

The Choice: Playing It Safe

The study showed little change in research on scientifically novel drugs for seniors in response to Medicare Part D.

“We saw an increase in drug research targeting seniors after the expansion of Medicare Part D,” Dranove says, “but it was largely for drugs with the same target-based actions as previous ones—addressing essentially the same condition in the body.”

“When the biopharma industry says that any change to drug pricing is going to destroy the innovation engine, that’s not really true.”

— Craig Garthwaite

From 2012 to 2018, there was an increase of 106 percent in the number of clinical trials for less-novel drugs targeting seniors, but only a 14 percent increase in trials for the most novel pharmaceuticals.

That means that in response to the new financial incentives, drug companies focused largely on copycat versions of drugs rather than truly novel products.

“What the new Medicare Part D was affecting are drugs that are only valuable at the margin,” Garthwaite says.

A Green Light for Pricing Regulation

The main practical implication of the finding is that incremental changes to drug profits probably won’t affect innovation in a noticeable way.

On one hand, this is discouraging news for healthcare professionals and policymakers who might otherwise champion incremental incentives in order to boost innovation. But on the other, it also suggests that policies that slightly lower drug prices won’t stifle pursuit of novel drugs. In short, the researchers argue that minor changes to drug-company profits will neither encourage nor discourage innovation.

“Increasing competition or decreasing returns from developing products won’t kill the biopharma industry,” Garthwaite says.

That means Americans could potentially enjoy lower drug prices—and the access that goes with these—without suffering a costly loss of biopharma innovation.

“That social impact is ultimately what we care about,” Garthwaite says.

The researchers also point out that copycat drugs developed in response to Medicare Part D did represent some value to patients—Lipitor was far from the first cholesterol-reducing drug to market, for example, but it improved upon existing ones and became a high-grossing product for Pfizer, a win–win.

“The fifth [copycat] drug brought to market may have the fewest side effects,” Dranove says. “Or it may be the one that drives prices down.”

Implications for COVID-19 Research

So what incentives would encourage biopharma firms to develop a truly innovative drug?

For an answer, look at the hundreds of firms that have joined the global hunt for COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. Welfare gains from even the greatest copycat drug “pale in comparison to the first drug that truly cures COVID,” Dranove says. “That’s the game-changer.”

And, of course, the expected profits from a COVID treatment are far higher than those introduced by Medicare Part D.

“True drug breakthroughs are really hard, and incremental changes in profitability aren’t the main reason why those things come along,” Dranove says.

Featured Faculty

Walter J. McNerney Professor of Health Industry Management; Faculty Director of PhD Program; Professor of Strategy

Professor of Strategy; Herman Smith Research Professor in Hospital and Health Services Management; Director of Healthcare at Kellogg

About the Writer
Sachin Waikar is a freelance writer based in Evanston, Illinois.
About the Research
David Dranove, Craig Garthwaite, and Manuel I. Hermosilla. “Expected Profits and the Scientific Novelty of Innovation.” NBER Working Paper 27093.

Read the original

Most Popular This Week
  1. What Happens to Worker Productivity after a Minimum Wage Increase?
    A pay raise boosts productivity for some—but the impact on the bottom line is more complicated.
    employees unload pallets from a truck using hand carts
  2. How to Get the Ear of Your CEO—And What to Say When You Have It
    Every interaction with the top boss is an audition for senior leadership.
    employee presents to CEO in elevator
  3. 6 Takeaways on Inflation and the Economy Right Now
    Are we headed into a recession? Kellogg’s Sergio Rebelo breaks down the latest trends.
    inflatable dollar sign tied down with mountains in background
  4. Which Form of Government Is Best?
    Democracies may not outlast dictatorships, but they adapt better.
    Is democracy the best form of government?
  5. When Do Open Borders Make Economic Sense?
    A new study provides a window into the logic behind various immigration policies.
    How immigration affects the economy depends on taxation and worker skills.
  6. How Offering a Product for Free Can Backfire
    It seems counterintuitive, but there are times customers would rather pay a small amount than get something for free.
    people in grocery store aisle choosing cheap over free option of same product.
  7. How Has Marketing Changed over the Past Half-Century?
    Phil Kotler’s groundbreaking textbook came out 55 years ago. Sixteen editions later, he and coauthor Alexander Chernev discuss how big data, social media, and purpose-driven branding are moving the field forward.
    people in 1967 and 2022 react to advertising
  8. Why Do Some People Succeed after Failing, While Others Continue to Flounder?
    A new study dispels some of the mystery behind success after failure.
    Scientists build a staircase from paper
  9. How Much Do Boycotts Affect a Company’s Bottom Line?
    There’s often an opposing camp pushing for a “buycott” to support the company. New research shows which group has more sway.
    grocery store aisle where two groups of people protest. One group is boycotting, while the other is buycotting
  10. 5 Takeaways on the State of ESG Investing
    ESG investing is hot. But what does it actually deliver for society and for shareholders?
    watering can pouring over windmills
  11. Could Bringing Your "Whole Self" to Work Curb Unethical Behavior?
    Organizations would be wise to help employees avoid compartmentalizing their personal and professional identities.
    A star employee brings her whole self to work.
  12. How Are Black–White Biracial People Perceived in Terms of Race?
    Understanding the answer—and why black and white Americans may percieve biracial people differently—is increasingly important in a multiracial society.
    How are biracial people perceived in terms of race
  13. What Went Wrong at AIG?
    Unpacking the insurance giant's collapse during the 2008 financial crisis.
    What went wrong during the AIG financial crisis?
  14. Why Well-Meaning NGOs Sometimes Do More Harm than Good
    Studies of aid groups in Ghana and Uganda show why it’s so important to coordinate with local governments and institutions.
    To succeed, foreign aid and health programs need buy-in and coordination with local partners.
  15. 3 Tips for Reinventing Your Career After a Layoff
    It’s crucial to reassess what you want to be doing instead of jumping at the first opportunity.
    woman standing confidently
  16. Immigrants to the U.S. Create More Jobs than They Take
    A new study finds that immigrants are far more likely to found companies—both large and small—than native-born Americans.
    Immigrant CEO welcomes new hires
  17. Podcast: Does Your Life Reflect What You Value?
    On this episode of The Insightful Leader, a former CEO explains how to organize your life around what really matters—instead of trying to do it all.
More in Healthcare