Document Type
Dissertation
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Major/Program
Economics
First Advisor's Name
Kaz Miyagiwa
First Advisor's Committee Title
Committee Chair
Second Advisor's Name
Cem Karayalcin
Second Advisor's Committee Title
Committee Member
Third Advisor's Name
Timothy Page
Third Advisor's Committee Title
Committee Member
Fourth Advisor's Name
Mira Wilkins
Fourth Advisor's Committee Title
Committee Member
Keywords
generic entry competition, switching cost, merger paradox, Hatch-Waxman Act, pharmaceutical industry, authorized generics, innovation
Date of Defense
3-27-2015
Abstract
Chapter 1: Patents and Entry Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Role of Marketing Exclusivity
Effective patent length for innovation drugs is severely curtailed because of extensive efficacy and safety tests required for FDA approval, raising concern over adequacy of incentives for new drug development. The Hatch-Waxman Act extends patent length for new drugs by five years, but also promotes generic entry by simplifying approval procedures and granting 180-day marketing exclusivity to a first generic entrant before the patent expires. In this paper we present a dynamic model to examine the effect of marketing exclusivity. We find that marketing exclusivity may be redundant and its removal may increase generic firms' profits and social welfare.
Chapter 2: Why Authorized Generics?: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations
Facing generic competition, the brand-name companies some-times launch generic versions themselves called authorized generics. This practice is puzzling. If it is cannibalization, it cannot be profitable. If it is divisionalization, it should be practiced always instead of sometimes. I explain this phenomenon in terms of switching costs in a model in which the incumbent first develops a customer base to ready itself against generic competition later. I show that only sufficiently low switching costs or large market size justifies launch of AGs. I then use prescription drug data to test those results and find support.
Chapter 3: The Merger Paradox and R&D
Oligopoly theory says that merger is unprofitable, unless a majority of firms in industry merge. Here, we introduce R&D opportunities to resolve this so-called merger paradox. We have three results. First, when there is one R&D firm, that firm can profitably merge with any number of non-R&D firms. Second, with multiple R&D firms and multiple non-R&D firms, all R&D firms can profitably merge. Third, with two R&D firms and two non-R&D firms, each R&D firms prefer to merge with a non-R&D firm. With three or more than non-R&D firms, however, the R&D firms prefer to merge with each other.
Identifier
FI15032133
Recommended Citation
Wan, Jiangyun, "Essays on Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry" (2015). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1900.
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/1900
Rights Statement
In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).