Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T02:59:44.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pharmaceutical Innovation in the United States: Factors Affecting Future Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Michael R. Pollard
Michael R. Pollard
Affiliation:
Michaels & Wishner, PC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fueled by high returns on its investments, the pharmaceutical industry in the United States has flourished for the past 50 years. The regulatory strategy of demanding stringent testing then allowing market-based pricing has allowed private companies to fund ambitious research and development activities with the assurance that these investments will be recovered. However, aggressive managed-care cost-containment strategies threaten the companies' ability to recoup research and development expenses and may affect their willingness to invest in future innovative research.

Information

Type
Special Section: Industry and the Generation of Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Spring 1993 , pp. 167 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Cimons, M. Too much too fast; drug rules: AIDS spurs new climate. Los Angeles Times, 09 7, 1989, 1.Google Scholar
2.Dozsa v. Crum & Foster Insurance Co. and Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 716 F Supp 131 (NJ 1989).Google Scholar
3. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, 35 USCA §156.Google Scholar
4.FDA speeds drug approval. World News Digest, 11 25, 1988, 875 F2.Google Scholar
5. 52 Federal Register 19466 (1987).Google Scholar
6.Gelijns, A.Technological innovation: Comparing development of drugs, devices, and proce dures in medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.Google Scholar
7.Grabowski, H.Medicaid patients' access to new drugs. Health Affairs, 1988, 7 (Winter), 102–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Mossinghoff, G. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, 09 17, 1990.Google Scholar
9. Patents Act, 35 USCA §1, et seq.Google Scholar
10.Pharmaceutical and health care expenditures in Medi-Cal 1984–1989, Final Report. Systemetrics/McGraw-Hill, Inc., 04 10, 1990.Google Scholar
11.Pharmaceutical benefits under state medical assistance programs. National Pharmaceutical Council, Inc., 09 1990, 141.Google Scholar
12. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 1987–1989. Annual Survey Report, 1989.Google Scholar
13.Pirozzi v Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Virginia, 741 F Supp 586 (ED VA 1990).Google Scholar
14.Pollack, A. Wellcome dropping its TPA heart drug. New York Times, 05 11, 1990, Section D, 3.Google Scholar
15.Pollard, M.Potential legal challenges to cost and utilization controls. HMO/PPO Trends, 1989, 2 (1), 14–16.Google Scholar
16.Pollard, M. Putting value on the line. Medical Interface, 1989, 01, 36.Google Scholar
17.Robinson, M.HCFA refuses PPS price adjustment for costly TPA. Hospitals, 1988, 62 (9), 20.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Rollo v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New Jersey, Dkt. No. 90–597 (D.N.J. 03 22, 1990).Google Scholar
19.SmithKline, prices new drug for heart attack victims. New York Times, 12 22,1989.Google Scholar
20.TPA/streptokinase mortality study proves inconclusive. Pharmaceutical Business News, 1990, 5 (118), 10–13.Google Scholar
21.Wilensky, G. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, 09 17,1990, 2.Google Scholar