I knew there would be an expert on P supply out there somewhere! Thanks, Bill.

Probably true, but I don’t think it would be all that hard. We know the cost of cold meds before and after the law change. That gives a range for the willingness-to-pay of consumers who decided not to purchase follwoing the law change. Data on sales of pseudoephedrine-based cold meds is probably available, or at least fairly easy to estimate since it’s been monitored for a while. Putting those two together gives a rough estimate of the loss in consumer surplus, which is a good start.

I also have no idea how P is made, I hasten to add!
I think the hard part about doing a full on cost-benefit analysis that includes the benefits of any reduction in P supply and the costs of inconvenience are that it is even harder to put a $ figure on those inconvenience-based costs than it is to put a $ figure on social benefits from tighter supply. I think attempts to do that can probably come up with whatever answer the researcher wants, depending on which of a wide range of plausible assumptions are chosen.

Maybe you’re right. I’ve no idea how P is made so I don’t know what options are available to P-makers. Are the alternative production options largely reliant on overseas supply of ingredients?

I imagine Oregon’s proximity to alternative sources of supply would also reduce the effectiveness of the ban, relative to NZ. Together, those factors point to Oregon’s experience being a lower bound for the impact on NZ, although we’ll have to wait for some data to know for sure.

My primary concern is that any reduction in P availability will count as success, without inclusion of the costs to people with colds.