History[ edit ] Joseph Whartonthe school's founder and namesake Joseph Wharton, a native Philadelphian, was a leader in industrial metallurgy who built his fortune through the American Nickel Company and Bethlehem Steel Corporation.
As Wharton's business grew, he recognized that business knowledge in the United States was only taught through an apprenticeship system, and such a system was not viable for creating a wider economy during the Second Industrial Revolution. Wharton was quoted as saying that the school was meant to "instill a sense of the coming strife [in business life]: Bolles, a lawyer, served as Wharton's first professor,  and the school's Industrial Research Unit was established in His work laid out what became the standard procedure for measuring the gross national product and the gross domestic productand he later led an international effort to establish the same statistical information for all national economies.
Taylor is credited with founding the academic field of study known as industrial relations. During his career, Taylor settled more than 2, strikes. Huebner is known widely as "the father of insurance education. He established the goal of professionalism in the field of insurance, developed the first collegiate level program in insurance and chaired the Department of Insurance at Wharton, and contributed greatly to the progress of adult education in this area.
Preventing Price Gouging in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Comprehensive Policy Approach
McGill was widely regarded as the "dean of the pension industry",  whose research contributed to shaping the modern retirement system both in the public and corporate sectors. At the time, there were no other business schools and no business professors could be recruited elsewhere. Bolles, a lawyer by education and training, and business journalist by career, seemed to be the best option for Joseph Wharton.
After resigning from his law firm, he started pursuing a new career in business journalism and was promoted to the editor role of Bankers Magazine, a trade publication, in Drug companies say that due to this limitation, they are not able to sell the drug to competitors, thereby eliminating the ability for competition and solidifying their quasi-monopoly on the product .
Tactics such as these effectively prevent new competitors from being able to sell a generic version of the product, and thus allow pharmaceutical companies to hike their prices and maintain quasi-monopolies. Solutions There are multiple policy approaches that could potentially stabilize the biopharmaceutical market and in turn protect the consumer.
Many states, such as Maryland and California, have already enacted policy meant to create legal challenges for pharmaceutical companies looking to raise prices.
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
However, for such a policy to be effective and protect the majority of consumer stakeholders, it must be Federal law. However, the government systematically prevents the import of drugs from countries such as Canada because of intense lobbying and alleged safety fears .
The FDA currently regulates imported drugs in order to alleviate shortages, and a possible policy solution is simply increasing imports of such pharmaceuticals. However, a report by the American Enterprise Institute states that even if Congress were to pass a law permitting free importation of pharmaceuticals, US prices would not be reduced .
Moreover, imports would cause the US market to be influenced by foreign price controls, and pharmaceutical companies would face nearly unlimited demand because of those historically low-priced markets. So, while this could lower prices to an extent, it does not seem like the best method of doing so.
Drug Price Hikes, December to January Bloomberg Upstream Regulation Future public policy should require bio-pharmaceutical companies choosing to divest from the production of a particular drug to include a price ceiling in the transfer agreement. Often when the patent life of a drug expires, the parent manufacturer will often cease manufacturing the molecule or biologic.
Novartis and University of Pennsylvania Announce Research Collaborative – Policy & Medicine
They often give up their rights to no longer profitable ventures to other companies, transferring manufacturing knowledge, marketing rights, and even trademarked names . In principle, when a company gives up manufacturing privileges, it should open the market by introducing competition, thereby reducing prices and consequently increase access.
However, in many cases, the opposite occurs because companies transfer patents to a single entity, which then has sole control over the drug pricing. Rodelis unexpectedly increased the price of the drug twenty-fold. Amidst heavy public scrutiny, Chao regained the manufacturing rights from Rodelis and reduced the price, but the price remained double the original price .
However, in the United States, patents are transferable goods because this allows for flexibility in research and manufacturing and recognizes the fact that a creator may not be the entity to bring a product to market .
Making patent transfers more regimented may consequently make it more difficult to ensure the continued production of a compound. Currently, bio-pharmaceutical companies in the United States are already required to provide notice of plans to discontinue the production of a potentially life-saving drug .
The addition of price ceiling in transfer agreements will result in more mindful and calculated transfer of drugs, which can confer stability to the market in the future. It will legally preempt price hikes in the industry. Transparency Bills At the crux of the American pharmaceutical pricing controversy is the issue of transparency.
The notification must be given 60 days prior to the beginning of projected price increase  . Such policy makes companies projecting a price hike subject to scrutiny from both the government and the public, which have been effective in pressuring companies to keep prices low in the past .
A similar policy on a national level would increase government influence over the biopharmaceutical industry without directly imposing price ceilings, regulating mergers, or manipulating patent law.
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania - Wikipedia
A national bio-pharmaceutical transparency bill would increase the dialogue regarding price hikes and result in increased accountability on the part of large manufacturers, which would work to prevent price gouging on a national level. However, drug companies have sued California over this law because they believe that it holds pharmaceutical companies solely culpable for price gouging while ignoring other entities, like suppliers and distributors.
They believe that this new regulation will lead to drug stockpiling and reduced competition . Therefore, while transparency is beneficial in the pharmaceutical industry from a consumer perspective, it can also lead to decreased efficiency and innovation.