ArticleHeliyon2024
Research on the improvement mechanism of value-based healthcare objectives in pharmaceutical group procurement.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact and implications of national centralized drug procurement in China.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Comparing 6-Year Carbon Footprint Between GINA Track 1 and 2 Asthma Management for Adults: A Real-World Primary Care Report from Singapore to Advocate for Policy Change in Inhaler Procurement.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Focusing on the research scenario that integrates value-based healthcare objectives with the pharmaceutical group purchasing model, this study delineates value-based healthcare objectives in pharmaceutical group purchasing from three perspectives: drug sales price, drug quality, and service level. We construct a three-level pharmaceutical group purchasing supply chain consisting of drug manufacturers, medical institutions, and non-profit drug group purchasing organisations. Under centralised and decentralised decision-making, we introduce cost-sharing contracts and "cost-sharing-quantity-discount" contracts to analyse the impact of factors such as drug sales price, quality, and sensitivity of the service level. The study found that: (1) Compared with centralised decision-making, the optimal drug quality and service level in decentralised decision-making and the optimal profits of drug manufacturers and medical institutions will decrease. However, the optimal drug sales price in decentralised decision-making always deviates from that in centralised decision-making, leading to higher or lower drug sales prices. (2) The incorporation of value-based healthcare objectives in the pharmaceutical group purchasing through cost-sharing contracts depends on changes in the proportion of drug quality costs borne by medical institutions. If the proportion is too high, medical institutions will suffer greater losses because they bear too much of the cost. (3) Under certain conditions, cost-sharing contracts can improve supply chain efficiency but cannot achieve supply chain coordination, while the combination of "cost-sharing-quantity-discount" contracts can achieve supply chain coordination in pharmaceutical group purchasing.
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.