Lakdawalla Darius, Sood Neeraj
RAND Corporation and NBER.
J Public Econ. 2009 Apr 1;93(3-4):541-548. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.11.003.
Rewarding inventors with inefficient monopoly power has long been regarded as the price of encouraging innovation. Prescription drug insurance escapes that trade-off and achieves an elusive goal: lowering static deadweight loss, without reducing incentives for innovation. As a result of this feature, the public provision of drug insurance can be welfare-improving, even for risk-neutral and purely self-interested consumers. The design of insurers' cost-sharing schedules can either reinforce or mitigate this result. Schedules that impose higher consumer cost-sharing requirements on more expensive drugs help ensure that insurance subsidies translate into higher utilization, rather than pure increases in manufacturer profits. Moreover, some degree of price-negotiation with manufacturers is likely to be welfare-improving, but the optimal degree depends on the size of such transactions costs, as well as the social cost of weakening innovation incentives by lowering innovator profits. These results have practical implications for the evaluation of public drug insurance programs like the US Medicaid and Medicare Part D programs, along with European insurance schemes.
长期以来,用低效的垄断权力奖励发明家一直被视为鼓励创新的代价。处方药保险规避了这种权衡,实现了一个难以实现的目标:降低静态无谓损失,同时不减少创新激励。由于这一特点,即使对于风险中性和纯粹自利的消费者而言,公共提供药品保险也能增进福利。保险公司成本分摊计划的设计可以强化或减轻这一结果。对更昂贵药品要求消费者承担更高成本分摊的计划,有助于确保保险补贴转化为更高的利用率,而不是纯粹增加制造商的利润。此外,与制造商进行一定程度的价格谈判可能会增进福利,但最优程度取决于此类交易成本的大小,以及通过降低创新者利润来削弱创新激励的社会成本。这些结果对于评估美国医疗补助计划和医疗保险D部分计划以及欧洲保险计划等公共药品保险项目具有实际意义。