ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Impact of China's national drug price negotiation on pharmaceutical firms' innovation activities.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The National Drug Price Negotiation (NDPN) is a key policy in China for controlling healthcare costs and improving drug accessibility. However, its impact on pharmaceutical firms' innovation remains controversial, with limited empirical evidence on micro-level mechanisms. Methods: Using panel data of Chinese A-share listed pharmaceutical companies from 2010 to 2024, we constructed a multi-period difference-in-differences (DID) model to empirically analyze the causal effects, transmission mechanisms, and heterogeneity of negotiation access on pharmaceutical firms' innovation activities. Identification robustness was enhanced through a series of robustness tests including parallel trend tests, placebo tests, and a combination of Propensity Score Matching and Differences-in-Differences (PSM-DID). Results: Negotiation access significantly stimulated firms' innovation investment. Mechanism tests indicated the effect was driven by the external signal transmission channel, through enhanced capital market valuation and government subsidies, while the internal resource release channel was not effectively realized, as reductions in marketing intensity did not significantly increase innovation investment. Heterogeneity analysis showed stronger effects in large firms and those with greater market power, but with attenuated effects for firms negotiating shortly after drug launch. Further analysis revealed a structural divergence between strategic and substantive innovation: non-invention patent quantity increased without quality improvement, whereas invention patent quality improved despite insignificant changes in quantity. Conclusions: NDPN positively promotes innovation but with structural heterogeneity. Policies should maintain a value-oriented negotiation mechanism, ensure smooth external signal transmission, facilitate internal resource reallocation, support weaker firms and early-stage products, improve clinical access to achieve dual goals of "ensuring coverage" and "promoting innovation."
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.