ArticleBMC public health2026
Regional health inequalities of anticancer drug accessibility under the National Drug Price Negotiation in China: a decomposition analysis.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEquitable access to anticancer drugs is a central concern in oncology care. China initiated National Drug Price Negotiation (NDPN) in 2016, which has been associated with improved accessibility and equity in anticancer drugs. This study aims to evaluate the current regional equity in the provision of negotiated anticancer drugs in China.
methodsThe study collected data on the availability of anticancer drugs negotiated by public platforms across 31 provinces. We collected province-level data on the availability of negotiated anticancer drugs in hospitals and pharmacies across 31 provinces and calculated GDP-related concentration indices (CIs). A decomposition analysis of CIs was conducted to identify determinants of inequity, and CIs were further computed within the breast cancer subgroup.
resultsThe CIs were 0.125 for hospitals and 0.139 for pharmacies, indicating pro-rich inequality in the regional provision of negotiated anticancer drugs, with higher-income eastern regions offering more hospitals and pharmacies with anticancer drugs. Medical insurance expenditures (56.209%) and inpatient costs (46.745%) exacerbated hospital supply inequality. The number of pharmacists in pharmacies (63.845%) was the primary positive contributor to pharmacy access inequality. Among breast cancer drugs, Abemaciclib and Nalatinib Maleate exhibited higher CIs of 0.244 and 0.223.
conclusionThe regional distribution of negotiated anticancer drugs reveals substantial disparities, with affluent regions more likely to access these medications through well-resourced hospitals and pharmacies. Health expenditure and financing mechanisms further amplify these inequalities. Even within similar indications, disparities persist in the availability of different drugs. Future initiatives should prioritize measures to ensure drug access in impoverished and remote areas.
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.