Estimating the price elasticity of expenditure for prescription drugs in the presence of non‐linear price schedules: an illustration from Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The price elasticity of demand for prescription drugs is a crucial parameter of interest in designing pharmaceutical benefit plans. Estimating the elasticity using micro-data, however, is challenging because insurance coverage that includes deductibles, co-insurance provisions and maximum expenditure limits create a non-linear price schedule, making price endogenous (a function of drug consumption). In this paper we exploit an exogenous change in cost-sharing within the Quebec (Canada) public Pharmacare program to estimate the price elasticity of expenditure for drugs using IV methods. This approach corrects for the endogeneity of price and incorporates the concept of a 'rational' consumer who factors into consumption decisions the price they expect to face at the margin given their expected needs. The IV method is adapted from an approach developed in the public finance literature used to estimate income responses to changes in tax schedules. The instrument is based on the price an individual would face under the new cost-sharing policy if their consumption remained at the pre-policy level. Our preferred specification leads to expenditure elasticities that are in the low range of previous estimates (between -0.12 and -0.16). Naïve OLS estimates are between 1 and 4 times these magnitudes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".