Recalls, Innovation, and Competitor Response: Evidence from Medical Device Firms

George P. Ball; Jeffrey T. Macher; Ariel Dora Stern

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

Recalls, Innovation, and Competitor Response: Evidence from Medical Device Firms

by George P. Ball, Jeffrey T. Macher and Ariel Dora Stern

Abstract

Innovation and new product development are the lifeblood of firms in R&D-intensive industries, yet malfunctioning products can cause immense damage. Product failures thus create managerial challenges and opportunities for focal firms and their competitors. Focal firm failures often result in sales decreases and cost increases associated with remedial public relations and manufacturing activities. Competitor firm failures, however, can create market opportunities and elicit strategic responses by focal firms. We develop theory and provide empirical evidence of how innovative activity changes in response to product recalls in the U.S. medical device industry. Focal firm recalls slow incremental innovation while competitor firm recalls accelerate incremental and major innovation. Recall prevention and remediation efforts are thus more important than previously suggested, due to significant competitor responses.

Keywords: product recalls; System Shocks; Innovation and Invention; Medical Devices and Supplies Industry;

Language: English

Format: Print

49 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Ball, George P., Jeffrey T. Macher, and Ariel Dora Stern. "Recalls, Innovation, and Competitor Response: Evidence from Medical Device Firms." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-028, September 2018. (Revised January 2019.)

The safety and security of medical devices driven by software, the software-development processes, and the need for data collection and privacy, all offer challenges and opportunities for device regulation and clinical care.

The 2011 German Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (“AMNOG”) subjected branded, non-rare disease drugs to price regulation based on an assessment of their clinical benefit. Assessment outcomes range from “major added benefit” to “less benefit than the appropriate comparator,” and impact price negotiations beyond the first year on the market. Using data on drugs that entered the market from 2012 to 2016, we evaluated benefit assessment findings, subsequent drug exits, and their correlates. We considered 171 drug-indication pairs, corresponding to 138 different drugs. Of these, 66 drug-indication pairs (55 different drugs) were found to have any additional benefit. Almost all drugs with any positive benefit assessment (98%) remained on the market, while drugs without a positive benefit assessment were over ten times more likely to exit (25% vs. 2%). U.S. policymakers considering how to address rapidly increasing drug costs may draw valuable lessons from the German experience.

In September 2018, the executive team at Ariadne Labs (Ariadne), a Boston-based organization dedicated to improving health systems through the discovery and implementation of simple tools, faced a number of strategic decisions. Chief among them, the seven-year-old organization needed to determine how it might establish and shepherd successful partnerships with a wide range of diverse entities—ranging from major international public health organizations like the World Bank to small non-profit implementing organizations.

Faculty & Research

Recalls, Innovation, and Competitor Response: Evidence from Medical Device Firms

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author