ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
National centralized drug procurement and health care expenditure of households-micro-evidence from CFPS.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Impact of pooled procurement of medicines on patient adherence and economic burden: evidence from China.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of outpatients regarding National centralized drug procurement policy: a multicenter cross-sectional study in North China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative study on government subsidy models for competitive drug supply chains under centralized procurement policy.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Impact of China's National Volume-Based Drug Procurement: A Multilevel Interrupted Time Series Analysis on Medical Expenditures in Hypertensive Patients.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Impact of China's National Volume-Based Procurement policy exclusively for insulin on the volume, expenditure and price: an interrupted time series analysis in Guangdong Province.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This paper utilizes data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) to evaluate the impact of the "4 + 7" National Centralized Drug Procurement (NCDP) on Methods: The study applies the Differences-in-Differences (DID) methodology to analyze the effects of NCDP. Various robustness tests were conducted, including the Permutation test, Propensity Score Matching, alterations in regression methodologies, and consideration of individual fixed effects. Results: Research indicates that the implementation of NCDP led to a reduction of 10.6% in PCHHCE. The results remained consistent across all robustness tests. Additionally, the research identifies diversity in NCDP effects among various household characteristics, with a more significant impact on households residing in rural regions of China, enrolled in Basic Medical Insurance for urban and rural residents and urban workers, and having an income bracket of 25-75%. Conclusion: These findings carry policy implications for the future expansion and advancement of NCDP in China. The study highlights the effectiveness of NCDP in reducing healthcare expenditures and suggests potential areas for policy improvement and further research.
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.