Television advertising of prescription drugs is controversial, and it remains illegal in all but two countries. Much of the opposition stems from concerns that advertising directly to consumers may inefficiently distort prescribing patterns toward the advertised product. Despite the controversy surrounding the practice, its effects are not well understood. Exploiting a discontinuity in advertising along the borders of television markets, I estimate that television advertising of prescription antidepressants exhibits significant positive spillovers on rivals’ demand. I then construct and estimate a multi-stage demand model that allows advertising to be pure category expansion, pure business stealing, or some of each. Estimated parameters indicate advertising has strong market-level demand effects that tend to dominate business-stealing effects. Spillovers are both large and persistent. Using the demand estimates and a stylized supply model, I explore the consequences of the positive spillovers on firm advertising choice. Compared with a competitive benchmark in which firms optimally free ride, simulations suggest a category-wide cooperative advertising scenario would produce a significant increase in total advertising.
Positive Spillovers and Free Riding in Advertising of Prescription Pharmaceuticals: The Case of Antidepressants by Bradley Shapiro :: SSRNFebruary 8, 2016
According to PolitiFact, however, while discouraging the buying of labor eliminates jobs, discouraging the selling of labor does not. On this arbitrary distinction, PolitiFact hangs its entire ruling. Without it, they would have to admit that the CBO’s projection that Obamacare will reduce employment by 2.5 million jobs supports Cruz’s statement.
Today the Mercatus Center unveiled a study by Bradley Herring (Johns Hopkins University) and Erin Trish (University of Southern California) finding that the much-discussed health spending slowdown that continued in 2010-13 “can likely be explained by longstanding patterns” over more than two decades, rather than suggesting a recent policy correction. Projecting these factors forward and incorporating the effects of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance coverage expansion provisions, Herring-Trish predict the expansion will produce a “likely increase in health care spending.”
If the House wins its ObamaCare lawsuit, the ruling would be an unprecedented rebuke of a president for brazenly usurping the power of the purse that the Constitution entrusts to Congress.
But the celebration may not last long, because the GOP may be in for a shocker: Eliminating $130 billion or so in unappropriated funds that the Obama administration has carved out for ObamaCare may significantly increase the cost of the law.
That’s the surprising conclusion of a new Urban Institute study which finds that total ObamaCare costs will rise by $47 billion over 10 years if a court ruling nixes the spending program which compensates insurers for reducing deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs charged to low-income policy holders.
This one weird trick can help even rich people buy Obamacare at sharply reduced prices. Really. A number of wealthy individuals, some of whom were “disgusted” with Obamacare when it first went into effect, nonetheless are now taking advantage of federal financial aid available under that health-care law to help significantly reduce their monthly insurance premiums. Carolyn McClanahan, a Jacksonville, Florida-based financial advisor and medical doctor, told CNBC that she’s steered at least five such clients, whose individual net worths range between $1 million and $3 million, toward buying Obamacare health plans because of the federal subsidies available due to their taxable income levels.
The poll finds that the 2010 healthcare law ranks eighth on voters’ list of issues important to them in the election. Twenty-three percent of registered voters said ObamaCare is extremely important to their vote, compared to 38 percent who said terrorism and 34 percent who said the economy. Coming in third, with 28 percent, is “the cost of your healthcare or health insurance.”
Healthcare License Turf Wars: The Effects of Expanded Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant Scope of Practice on Medicaid Patient Access | MercatusJanuary 27, 2016
A new study for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University explores how the licensing requirements for physician assistants and nurse practitioners affect medical outcomes for Medicaid recipients. It finds that prohibiting physician assistants from prescribing drugs to patients significantly raises costs, by more than 11 percent on average, translating to about $109 in extra expenses for each Medicaid beneficiary. Relaxing these restrictions would result in savings for Medicaid beneficiaries and would not cause any changes to the availability of health care.