ArticleJAMA dermatology2018
Association Between Market Competition and Prices of Generic Topical Dermatology Drugs.
Article in JAMA dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating factors associated with pharmaceutical price variation, dispersion and higher-tier pricing in Malaysia's public segmented procurement system: exploring market competition.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Drug price dynamics following changes in procurement method in the public healthcare setting in Malaysia.PloS one · 2026Article
- Quantifying the Role of Specialty Medications in Medicare Part D Expenditures in Dermatology.JAMA dermatology · 2025Article
- Which factor reduces pharmaceutical expenditure, number of entrants or price variance? Updated generic drug markets in South Korea.Health economics review · 2024Article
- Update on the advances and challenges in bioequivalence testing methods for complex topical generic products.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- The utility of augmented teledermatology to improve dermatologist diagnosis of cellulitis: a cross-sectional study.Archives of dermatological research · 2023Article
- Article
- The Effect of Market Competition on the Price of Topical Eye Drops.Seminars in ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Who initiates price competition when generic entrants are introduced into the South Korean pharmaceutical market?Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Dynamics of price competition in Italian pharmaceutical off-patent market.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Trends in Use and Expenditures for Brand-name Statins After Introduction of Generic Statins in the US, 2002-2018.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Market Exclusivity of the Originator Drugs in South Korea: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Is greater generic competition also linked to lower drug prices in South Korea?Health economics review · 2020Article
- Characteristics and Price Increases Among Sole-Source, Off-Patent Drugs in the United States, 2008 to 2018.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Spending on World Health Organization essential medicines in Medicare Part D, 2011-15: retrospective cost analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: During the last decade, increases in drug prices for commonly prescribed dermatologic medications have outpaced the rate of inflation, national health care growth, and reimbursements. Among nondermatologic medications, studies have shown a role for robust generic market competition in reducing drug prices. The association between competition and the costs of topical dermatologic generic drugs has not been evaluated. Objective: To characterize the association between changes in drug price and the number of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved manufacturers among the most commonly used topical dermatologic generic products. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cost analysis of the most commonly prescribed topical dermatologic generic drugs used cumulative annual claims data from the Medicare Part D Prescriber Public User File to identify 597 dermatologist-prescribed drugs with more than 10 claims. The number of manufacturers and the price per unit were identified from the FDA Orange Book and the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) database, respectively, for 2013 through 2016. Drugs that were nondermatologic, were not topically administered, were missing NADAC data, were lacking a generic formulation, or had fewer than 400 claims were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included per-unit drug price and number of FDA-approved manufacturers. Pricing measures were adjusted for inflation and are reported in 2016 dollars. Results: The present analysis included 116 topical dermatologic generic formulations, representing 70.5% of the total Medicare Part D dermatologist-coded claims from 2015. Drug formulations with 1 to 2 manufacturers during the study period sustained a median percentage increase in price of 12.7%, whereas those with more than 6 manufacturers had a median percentage decrease in price of 20.5%. Formulations with 1 to 2 manufacturers had a 20.6%, 19.5%, and 33.2% higher percentage increase in price than those with 3 to 4 manufacturers, 5 to 6 manufacturers, and more than 6 manufacturers, respectively. There was a statistically significant inverse association between the percentage change in drug price and median number of manufacturers (Spearman correlation coefficient, -0.26; P = .005). Conclusions and Relevance: The negative association between the change in drug price and the median number of manufacturers of generic topical dermatologic drugs indicates a role for market competition in controlling the costs of generic drug prices within dermatology. These findings support policies that facilitate robust market competition among topical dermatologic generic drugs produced by a limited number of manufacturers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.