Nathenson Robert, Richards Michael R
University of Pennsylvania, 3440 Market Street Suite 560, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.
Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 2525 West End, Suite 1275, Nashville, 37203, TN, USA.
Int J Health Econ Manag. 2018 Sep;18(3):321-336. doi: 10.1007/s10754-018-9234-3. Epub 2018 Jan 29.
Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription drugs is a relatively unique feature of the US health care system and a source of tens of billions of dollars in annual spending. It has also garnered the attention of researchers and policymakers interested in its implications for firm and consumer behavior. However, few economic studies have explored the DTCA response to public policies, especially those mandating coverage of these products. We use detailed advertising expenditure data to assess if pharmaceutical firms increase their marketing efforts after the implementation of relevant state and federal health insurance laws. We focus on mental health parity statutes and related drug therapies-a potentially ripe setting for inducing stronger consumer demand. We find no clear indication that firms expect greater value from DTCA after these regulatory changes. DTCA appears driven by other considerations (e.g., product debut); however, it remains a possibility that firms respond to these laws through other, unobserved channels (e.g., provider detailing).
处方药的直接面向消费者的广告(DTCA)是美国医疗保健系统一个相对独特的特征,也是每年数百亿美元支出的一个来源。它也引起了对其对公司和消费者行为影响感兴趣的研究人员和政策制定者的关注。然而,很少有经济学研究探讨DTCA对公共政策的反应,尤其是那些强制要求覆盖这些产品的政策。我们使用详细的广告支出数据来评估制药公司在相关州和联邦医疗保险法律实施后是否会加大营销力度。我们关注心理健康平价法规及相关药物疗法——这是一个可能引发更强劲消费者需求的成熟领域。我们没有发现明确迹象表明,在这些监管变化之后,公司认为DTCA能带来更大价值。DTCA似乎受其他因素驱动(例如产品首次亮相);不过,公司仍有可能通过其他未被观察到的渠道(例如向医疗服务提供者详细介绍)对这些法律做出反应。