Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Amir Hashemi-Meshkini 1
- . Mehdi Varmaghani 1
- . Mehdi Yousefi 2
- . Saeed Yaghoubifard 3
- . Hedieh-Sadat Zekri 4
- . Shekoufeh Nikfar 5
- . Abbas Kebriaeezadeh 3
1 Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Management, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Non‑Communicable Disease Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Health and Management, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3 Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Management, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Faculty of Economics, Allameh‑Tabatabaiee University of Human Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Management, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Food and Drug Organization, Iranian Ministry of Health, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Objective: Brand‑generic scheme was implemented in Iran to improve the competition
in the pharmaceutical market. In this study, we aim to assess if this policy had any positive
effect on efficiency of Iranian pharmaceutical companies.
Methods: We used data envelopment analysis to evaluate the relative efficiency of
pharmaceutical companies during 1999-2008. The Wilcoxon matched‑pairs signed‑rank and
sign tests were used to assess the difference between mean technical efficiency of companies
before and after implementation of the new policy.
Findings: Although the Wilcoxon matched‑pairs signed‑rank tests did not show any
significant differences in favor of the new policy in terms of both relative and pure (managerial)
technical efficiency for included companies (P = 0.079 and 0.07, respectively), but the
one‑sided sign test indicated that only relative pure (managerial) efficiency has been improved
after this policy (P = 0.031).
Conclusion: The “brand‑generic scheme” does not seem to be a successful policy to
improve efficiency level and prompt competition in pharmaceutical companies in Iran. To
achieve this aim, consideration of infrastructural requirements including transparent and
non‑discriminating laws and regulations to support competition, the competitive pricing
policies, the presence of international companies in the market, and full privatization of
companies had to be also deeming by policy makers.
Keywords
- Nikfar S, Kebriaeezadeh A, Majdzadeh R, Abdollahi M.
Monitoring of National Drug Policy(NDP) and its standardized
indicators; conformity to decisions of the national drug
selecting committee in Iran. BMC Int Health Hum Rights
2005;5:5.
2. Cheraghali AM, Nikfar S, Behmanesh Y, Rahimi V,
Habibipour F, Tirdad R, et al. Evaluation of availability,
accessibility and prescribing pattern of medicines in
the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J
2004;10:406‑15.
3. Cheraghali AM. Iran pharmaceutical market. Iran J Pharm
Res 2006;1:1‑7.
4. Basmenji K. Pharmaceuticals in Iran: An overview. Arch Iran
Med 2004;7:158‑64.
5. Davari M, Walley T, Haycox A. Pharmaceutical policy and
market in Iran: Past experiences and future challenges.
J Pharm Health Serv Res 2011;2:47‑52.
6. Madani H, Shahhoseyni MH, Khamse A. Impact of generic
plan on development of technology capability (in Farsi).
Hakim Res J 2011;14:23‑31.
7. Kebriaeezadeh A, Eslamitabar Sh, Khatibi M. Iranian
Pharmaceutical Law and Regulations. Tehran: Razi
Distribution Press; 2009.
8. Dinarvand R. A new pharmaceutical environment in Iran:
Marketing impacts. Iran J Pharm Res 2003;2:1‑2.
9. Dinarvand R. New national drug policy in Iran leading
to expanded pharmaceutical market and extended
access of public to medicines. Iran J Public Health
2009;38 Suppl 1:158‑61.
10. Donald AH, Liu SG. The efficiency of firms: What difference
does competition make? Econ J 1997;107:597‑617.
11. Carlsson B. The measurement of efficiency in production: An
application to Swedish manufacturing industries 1968. Swed
J Econ 1972;74:468‑85.
12. Bikker JA, Bos JW. Bank Performance: A Theoretical and
Empirical Framework for the Analysis of Profitability,
Competition and Efficiency. New York: Routledge; 2008.
13. CharnesA, Cooper WW, Rhodes EL. Measuring the efficiency
of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 1978;2:429‑44.
14. Emamimeibodi A. Principles of Efficiency and Productivity
Measurement [in Persian]. Tehran: Institute of Trade Studies
and Research; 2004. p. 48‑51.
15. TSE database website. Available from: http://www.rdis.ir/
CMPAnnouncements.asp. [Last accessed on 2012 Sep].
16. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria; 2012. ISBN 3‑900051‑07‑0. Available from: http://
www.R‑project.org/. [last accessed on 2013 Jan].
17. Keshavarz K, Kebriaeezadeh A, Meshkini AH, Nikfar S,
Mirian I, Khoonsari H. Financial perspective of private
pharmacies in Tehran (Iran); is it a lucrative business? Daru
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2012;20:62. - 18. Amirshahi MA, Haghighinasab M, Habibi A, Ahmadiani A.
A case study on branding in Iran pharmaceutical industry (in
Farsi). Pejouhandeh 2009;14:99‑107.
19. Hashemi Meshkini A, Kebriaeezadeh A, Dinarvand R,
Nikfar S, Habibzadeh M, Vazirian I. Assessment of the vaccine
industry in Iran in context of accession to WTO: A survey
study. Daru Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2012;20:19.
20. Rahimi M, Ahmadi P, Hoseini SH. Commercial effects of Iran’s
membership in the WTO in the drug industry (in Farsi). Hakim
Res J 2011;14:73‑7.
21. AzadS. The politics of privatization in Iran. MERIA 2010;14:60‑71.
22. Chen X, Skully M, Brown K. Banking efficiency in China:
Application of DEA to pre‑ and post‑deregulation eras:
1993‑2000. China Econ Rev 2005;16:229‑45.
23. Hashimoto A, Haneda S. Measuring the change in R and D
efficiency of the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. Res Policy
2008;37:1829‑36.
24. Gray JA. Evidence based policy making: Is about taking
decisions based on evidence and the needs and values of the
population. BMJ 2004;329:988‑9.
)