Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20575239›Full record

ArticleAdvances in health economics and health services research2010

Patents, innovation, and the welfare effects of Medicare Part D.

Adam Gailey, Darius Lakdawalla, Neeraj Sood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in health economics and health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adam GaileyRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Darius Lakdawalla
Neeraj Sood

Funding

WHOM DOES MEDICARE BENEFITR01AG021940 · NIA · RAND CORPORATION · PI LAKDAWALLA, DARIUS N. · 2004 to 2006
$708k
NIA NIH HHS 1R01AG021940NIA NIH HHS R01 AG021940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the efficiency consequences of the Medicare Part D program.

methodsWe develop and empirically calibrate a simple theoretical model to examine the static and the dynamic welfare effects of Medicare Part D.

findingsWe show that Medicare Part D can simultaneously reduce static deadweight loss from monopoly pricing of drugs and improve incentives for innovation. We estimate that even after excluding the insurance value of the program, the welfare gain of Medicare Part D roughly equals its social costs. The program generates $5.11 billion of annual static deadweight loss reduction and at least $3.0 billion of annual value from extra innovation. IMPLICATIONS: Medicare Part D and other public prescription drug programs can be welfare-improving, even for risk-neutral and purely self-interested consumers. Furthermore, negotiation for lower branded drug prices may further increase the social return to the program. ORIGINALITY: This study demonstrates that pure efficiency motives, which do not even surface in the policy debate over Medicare Part D, can nearly justify the program on their own merits.

Indexed as

Medicare Part DPatents as TopicSocial WelfareEconomic CompetitionModels, EconometricPharmaceutical PreparationsResearchUnited StatesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID20575239
PMCPMC3988702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.