Bundles in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Case Study of Pediatric Vaccines

Kevin W. Caves, Hal J. Singer
{"title":"Bundles in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Case Study of Pediatric Vaccines","authors":"Kevin W. Caves, Hal J. Singer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1908306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bundling by a firm with monopoly power can be shown to reduce consumer welfare in one of two ways. First, by applying the “discount attribution standard,” bundling can be shown to exclude or impair equally efficient rivals in ancillary or “tied” markets. Second, by comparing the penalty price of the monopolized or “tying” product when purchased separately with its “independent monopoly price,” bundling can be shown to reduce consumer welfare directly. This paper examines both approaches in the sale of pediatric vaccines in the United States. Analysis of contractual terms imposed by incumbent vaccine manufacturers implies large non-compliance penalties, such that there is no positive price at which a hypothetical rival could induce an otherwise indifferent buyer to “break the bundle.” Furthermore, an analysis of pricing benchmarks indicates that incumbents’ bundled discounts successfully leverage market power from the tying market to the tied market, and observed rival penetration rates indicate that incumbent manufacturers have induced significant foreclosure of rivals. Finally, we analyze the role of Physician Buying Groups (PBGs) in the U.S. pediatric vaccine market, demonstrating that PBGs’ compensation structure distorts their incentives to secure the best prices for healthcare providers.","PeriodicalId":295980,"journal":{"name":"MKTG: Marketing Strategy (Topic)","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MKTG: Marketing Strategy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1908306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Bundling by a firm with monopoly power can be shown to reduce consumer welfare in one of two ways. First, by applying the “discount attribution standard,” bundling can be shown to exclude or impair equally efficient rivals in ancillary or “tied” markets. Second, by comparing the penalty price of the monopolized or “tying” product when purchased separately with its “independent monopoly price,” bundling can be shown to reduce consumer welfare directly. This paper examines both approaches in the sale of pediatric vaccines in the United States. Analysis of contractual terms imposed by incumbent vaccine manufacturers implies large non-compliance penalties, such that there is no positive price at which a hypothetical rival could induce an otherwise indifferent buyer to “break the bundle.” Furthermore, an analysis of pricing benchmarks indicates that incumbents’ bundled discounts successfully leverage market power from the tying market to the tied market, and observed rival penetration rates indicate that incumbent manufacturers have induced significant foreclosure of rivals. Finally, we analyze the role of Physician Buying Groups (PBGs) in the U.S. pediatric vaccine market, demonstrating that PBGs’ compensation structure distorts their incentives to secure the best prices for healthcare providers.
医药行业的捆绑:儿科疫苗的案例研究
具有垄断力量的公司的捆绑销售可以通过两种方式之一来减少消费者的福利。首先,通过应用“折扣归属标准”,捆绑销售可以排除或损害在辅助或“捆绑”市场中同样有效的竞争对手。第二,通过对被垄断或“捆绑”产品单独购买时的惩罚价格与“独立垄断价格”的比较,可以直接证明捆绑会降低消费者的福利。本文考察了在美国销售儿科疫苗的两种方法。对现有疫苗制造商强加的合同条款的分析表明,如果不遵守规定,将受到巨额罚款,因此,没有一个积极的价格可以让假设的竞争对手诱使原本漠不关心的买家“打破捆绑”。此外,对定价基准的分析表明,现有制造商的捆绑折扣成功地利用了捆绑市场对捆绑市场的市场力量,观察到的竞争对手渗透率表明,现有制造商已经引起了竞争对手的严重丧失抵押品赎回权。最后,我们分析了医师购买团体(pbg)在美国儿科疫苗市场中的作用,证明了pbg的薪酬结构扭曲了他们为医疗保健提供者确保最佳价格的动机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信