This was not the main finding, however. The study's focus was determining when generic pharmaceutical companies were likely to branch out into new markets via the manufacture of new drugs. The answer tended to be that companies entered markets with similar supply and demand levels as those of drugs already produced by the generic manufacturer. The study also interprets these results to mean that specialization based on supply capabilities is beneficial to all generic pharmaceutical manufacturing companies as it reduces the "overentering" (or over-saturation) of a market. This was the bulk of what I learned from the article. Some of the other findings followed basic common sense -- markets with higher revenues, drugs that were purchased by hospitals more, and drugs that treated chronic conditions all received more market entries. This makes sense as these...

I also learned -- though I should not have been so naive -- how big a role money plays in healthcare. Though there seem to be few alternatives, the current system does not seem to be set up to the patient's advantage.
At times, the author's style seems almost juvenile, and the way she explains facts is overly simple. Also, her research did not lead to any surprising or really useful conclusions; I understand that the data available was limited, but that begs the question of whether this research should have been undertaken in the first place. I would also like to ask the author if she plans to conduct further studies to determine long-term causes and effects of the generic pharmaceutical market, and what effect market entry by these generic manufacturers has on consumers (that is, medical patients).