ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2026
The impact of China's National Drug Centralized Procurement Policy on pharmaceutical firm innovation: evidence from a staggered difference-in-differences analysis.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: China's National Drug Centralized Procurement Policy (NDCPP) aims to reduce drug prices through a 'price-for-volume' mechanism. While effective in cost containment, its impact on pharmaceutical firms' innovation remains debated, with existing studies often focusing on short-term or static effects. Methods: This study utilises an unbalanced panel of 160 listed Chinese pharmaceutical firms from 2015 to 2023. We employ a multi-period staggered difference-in-differences (DID) model to identify the causal impact of the NDCPP on innovation input (R&D investment intensity) and output (authorised invention patents). Mediation models are constructed to test the roles of cost and operational efficiency. Results: Baseline estimates indicate that the NDCPP significantly increases innovation activities. The implementation of the NDCPP led to an increase in innovation input by 0.0118 units (representing a 1.18 percentage point increase in R&D intensity, or a 22.06% increase relative to the mean) and innovation output by 0.847 units (representing an average annual increase of 0.847 authorised invention patents per firm, or a 14.20% increase relative to the mean). Dynamic analyses reveal an immediate response and continuous enhancement, with promotional effects strengthening from the first to fourth years after policy implementation respectively. Mediation analyses show that cost efficiency significantly mediates innovation output, while strategic inventory management mediates R&D investment. Heterogeneity analyses demonstrate strong responses among private, large, and chemical pharmaceutical firms, with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) firms also showing significant gains in innovation input. Conclusion: The result indicates a strategic reorientation of pharmaceutical firms, incentivizing a resource reallocation from marketing activities toward substantive R&D activities. The 'price-for-volume' effect offsets price deductions through rapid reorganisation of resources. Future policies should consolidate this momentum and guide enterprises toward high-quality, sustainable 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.