MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032641233 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00673

Estimating The Cost Of Delayed Generic Drug Entry To Medicaid

2020· article· en· W3032641233 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chintan Dave, Michael S. Sinha, Reed F. Beall, Aaron S. Kesselheim

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidQuarter (Canadian coin)Generic drugBrand namesMarket shareBusinessMedicineActuarial scienceAdvertisingMarketingEconomicsHealth careDrugPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delays in market entry of generic drugs are common. This study sought to identify the prevalence of delayed entry, the reasons for the delays, and the delays' effects on Medicaid spending in a recent cohort of brand-name medications. We estimated excess Medicaid spending in 2010-16 in the delayed quarter-years after accounting for market average predictions of brand-name market share, ratios of generic to brand-name prices, and Medicaid rebates (60 percent for brand-name and 15 percent for generic drugs). Among sixty-nine brand-name drugs that were predicted to lose market exclusivity, generic entry occurred either before or within a quarter-year of the expected date for thirty-eight products (55 percent), was delayed by more than one quarter for twenty products (29 percent), and did not occur for eleven products (16 percent). For the thirty-one products (45 percent) for which generic entry was delayed by more than one quarter or did not occur, Medicaid spent an estimated excess of $761 million over seven years ($109 million annually). Patent litigation was the most common cause of generic entry delays. Policies that expedite the resolution of patent challenges are needed to ensure the timely entry of generic drugs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207