The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments
Abstract
The 1962 drug amendments seek to prevent wasted expenditure stimulated by exaggerated claims for effectiveness of new drugs by requiring premarketing approval of all new drug claims by the Food and Drug Administration. The compliance costs are shown to have engendered a marked reduction in drug innovation. Consumer surplus analysis is then adapted and supplemented with "expert" drug evaluations to estimate the relevant benefits and costs. The main finding is that benefits forgone on effective new drugs exceed greatly the waste avoided on ineffective drugs. The estimated net impact is equivalent to a 5-10 percent tax on drug purchases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Do Smokers Underestimate Risks?
Viscusi, W. K. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261733 · Cited by 466
Joskow, P. L. (1974) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/466794 · Cited by 437
The value of changes in life expectancy
Rosen, S. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00056139 · Cited by 377
Metadata
- Authors
- Peltzman, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Political Economy
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1973-09
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1049-1091
- ISSN
- 0022-3808 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-534X
- OpenAlex
- W2048853508
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/260107
- The paper
- Peltzman, S. (1973). An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments. Journal of Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1086/260107
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
