Match!
John M Vernon
Duke University
34Publications
17H-index
1,977Citations
Publications 34
Newest
#1John M VernonH-Index: 17
#2Robert GoldbergH-Index: 5
Last.Joseph H. GolecH-Index: 17
view all 4 authors...
1.Advocates of comparative effectiveness research (CER) claim it can be used to reduce health care spending because a large portion pays for medical technologies that add little health or social benefit. This assumption runs counter to evidence that medical innovation is associated with lower and greater longevity.2.To the extent that CER is used to reduce the development and use of new drugs, devices, and diagnostics, it is important to estimate what impact the reduced rate of innovation would ...
#1John M VernonH-Index: 17
#2Robert GoldbergH-Index: 5
Last.Yashodhara DashH-Index: 1
view all 3 authors...
and governments allocate scarce health care resources in an efficient manner. A potential problem arises, however, when this resource-rationing mechanism, and the explicit (or implicit) valuation it places on health benefits, deviates from socially-optimal levels; for example, when the true economic value of a health benefit exceeds the amount that a payer or government is willing to pay for the benefit. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) uses a $50,000 ...
#1Joseph A. DiMasi (Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development)H-Index: 26
#2Henry G. Grabowski (Duke University)H-Index: 39
Last.John M Vernon (Duke University)H-Index: 17
view all 3 authors...
Objectives: This study examines the degree to which therapeutic class accounts for variability in drug development costs. It also scrutinizes how sales levels vary across the associated therapeutic classes for those drugs that have reached the marketplace. Data and Methods: A stratified random sample of 68 investigational drugs that first entered clinical testing anywhere in the world from 1983 to 1994 was selected from the pipelines of 10 pharmaceutical firms. Clinical period cost data were obt...
#1Henry GrabowskiH-Index: 1
#2John M VernonH-Index: 17
Last.Joseph A. DiMasiH-Index: 26
view all 3 authors...
#1Henry G. GrabowskiH-Index: 39
#2John M VernonH-Index: 17
Last.Joseph A. DiMasiH-Index: 26
view all 3 authors...
Previously published research by two of the authors found that returns on RD indications that RD new market strategies of major pharma firms; increased alliances with the emerging biotech sector; and, the increased attention focused on the pharmaceutical industry in the political arena. Nevertheless, analysis of new drugs entering the market from 1990-1994 resulted in findings similar to the earlier researchopharmaceutical R&D is characterized by a highly skewed distribution of returns and a mea...
#1Henry G. Grabowski (Duke University)H-Index: 39
#2John M Vernon (Duke University)H-Index: 17
Last.Joseph A. DiMasi (Tufts University)H-Index: 26
view all 3 authors...
Background: Previously published research by the authors found that returns on research and development (RD indications that RD new market strategies of major firms aimed at simultaneous launches across world markets; and the increased attention focused on the pharmaceutical industry in the political arena.
#1Henry G. Grabowski (Duke University)H-Index: 39
#2John M Vernon (Duke University)H-Index: 17
Since the late 1970s, pharmaceutical R&D has grown at a rapid rate relative to sales and other variables. In this paper, we examine the determinants of pharmaceutical R&D using a pooled data sample of 11 major drug firms over the period 1974 to 1994. We find that expected returns and cash flows are important explanatory variables of firm research intensities during this period. This is consistent with our results for an earlier sample period characterized by very different growth patterns on R&D...
Objective: This report updates our earlier work on the returns to pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) in the US (1980 to 1984), which showed that the returns distributions are highly skewed. It evaluates a more recent cohort of new drug introductions in the US (1988 to 1992) and examines how the returns distribution is emerging for drugs with life cycles concentrated in the 1990s versus the 1980s.
1234