Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40161018›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Comparative study on government subsidy models for competitive drug supply chains under centralized procurement policy.

Yan Wen, Yan Wei, Lu Liu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yan WenSchool of Business, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Yan WeiSchool of Business, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Lu LiuSchool of Business, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the generic drug market tends to be saturated, the structural transformation of generic drug companies is imminent, while the high investment and high-risk attributes of innovative drug research and development aggravate the transformation difficulties. Against the backdrop of drug centralized procurement policy, considering the effect of health insurance reimbursement and market competition ferocity, this study constructs a differential game model of a secondary drug supply chain comprising two competing drug companies and a single healthcare institution. In addition, this study comparatively analyzes the optimal equilibrium strategies and supply chain profit levels of drug research and development investment and healthcare service efforts under four government subsidy modes, further discussing them along with arithmetic examples. It is found that the government's subsidy behavior markedly influenced drug companies' investment in drug research and development and healthcare institution' service cost investment. Besides, different incentives for supply chain members' decision-making and profits were noted in different markets with different competition intensities. In the low-intensity competition market, the government's subsidies to innovative drug companies generate much higher social welfare than other modes. In the high-intensity competition market, the government subsidized healthcare institution can minimize the mutually exclusive effects of subsidies on the development of innovative and generic drug companies, and eventually drive the reform and development of the entire drug industry.

Indexed as

Drug IndustryDrugs, GenericEconomic CompetitionFinancing, GovernmentHumansDrugs, Genericcentralized procurementdifferential gamedrug supply chaingovernment subsidiesinnovative drug

Identifiers

PMID40161018
PMCPMC11949922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.