ArticlePloS one2026
Drug price dynamics following changes in procurement method in the public healthcare setting in Malaysia.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pooled and segmented procurement are common in public health, but changing needs may prompt method shifts. Understanding their impact on drug prices is crucial for informed policy decisions. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of procurement method changes from pooled to segmented (P → S) and from segmented to pooled (S → P) on drug prices within Malaysia's public health sector. A five-year retrospective analysis was conducted using data from eight therapeutic subgroups, covering 73 drugs and 151 comparative procurements. The product price index measured price changes between procurement groups, and differences in probabilities and price index were assessed using Pearson Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. The significance level was p < 0.05. Out of 151 comparative procurements, 48.34% (n = 73) were P → S, and 51.66% (n = 78) were S → P. Significant differences were found in all pairwise comparisons between the groups for changes in drug prices. Specifically, the proportion of procurements with price decreases was significantly higher in the S → P group (79.49%) than in the P → S group (30.14%) (p < 0.0005), while price increases were more frequent in the P → S group (50.68% vs. 15.38%, p < 0.0005). Price stability was also more commonly observed in the P → S group (19.18%) than in the S → P group (5.13%) (p = 0.008). Overall, the P → S group had statistically significant higher mean ranks of 101.08 than the S → P group (mean rank = 52.53) with U = 151, z = -6.824, p < 0.0005, indicating that the S → P group tended to have lower prices on average than the P → S group. Pooled procurement potentially saves costs over segmented methods, but understanding both options' pros and cons is crucial for tailored solutions.
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.