ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2014
Healthcare reform in the United States and China: pharmaceutical market implications.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing Single and Multi-Tablet Fixed Dose Combination HIV Treatment Regimens.Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of ibrutinib plus venetoclax for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma in China and the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Quantitative analysis of new drug registration policies for traditional Chinese medicine using the PMC index model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The impact of insurance status on the survival outcomes of patients with renal cell carcinoma.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Spending on Research and Development to Address the Needs for Innovative Therapeutic Products in Indonesia.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2020Article
- Defining hospital community benefit activities using Delphi technique: A comparison between China and the United States.PloS one · 2019Article
- ePrescribing: Reducing Costs through In-Class Therapeutic Interchange.Applied clinical informatics · 2016Article
- Demonstrating the value of medicines: evolution of value equation and stakeholder perception of uncertainties.Journal of market access & health policy · 2016Article
- Prescribing efficiency of proton pump inhibitors in China: influence and future directions.BMC health services research · 2015Observational
- Improving viable low cost generic medication prescription rate in primary care pediatric practice.BMJ quality improvement reports · 2015Article
- Generic drugs: Review and experiences from South India.Journal of family medicine and primary careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe United States and China are broadening health insurance coverage and increasing spending on pharmaceuticals, in contrast to other major economies that are reducing health spending and implementing a variety of drug price controls. This article analyzes the implications of health system reforms in the United States and China for national pharmaceutical markets. It follows a historical institutionalist approach that identifies path dependency in the design and operation of national health systems. On that basis, we estimate prescription sales for 2015 and 2020, analyze the sustainability of free-market pricing for drugs in the two countries, and assess future competitive dynamics in the pharmaceutical sector.
methodsThe institutional trajectories of health system reform and insurance coverage were studied for the United States and China. Next, data were collected from government, industry, and analyst reports on total healthcare spending and prescription drug expenditure by insurance status (in the United States) and by site of care (in China). Simple quantitative models were developed to estimate future drug spending based on insurance coverage, treatment locations, and health spending as a percentage of GDP.
resultsBoth countries will see rising total pharmaceutical spending and will be the two largest country markets for prescription drugs through at least 2020. In dollar terms, the U.S. pharmaceutical market will be over $440 billion in 2015 and $700 billion in 2020; China's prescription market will be over $155 billion in 2015 and grow further to $260 billion in 2020. In both countries, generics will increase their share of all prescriptions, but economic and structural incentives for new drug invention and brand-name prescribing by physicians will keep the share of patented drug sales high compared to countries with more direct government control over the pharmaceutical market.
conclusionsExpanding private insurance contributes to spending on branded drugs, since insurers compete for market share rather than cost savings. Health system reforms presently being enacted in the United States and China align to historical institutional trajectories in each country, but leave unresolved a core tension between incentives for new drug invention and universal access to affordable medicines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.