BackgroundIn October 2012, the Chinese government established maximum retail prices for specific products, including 30 antineoplastic medications. Three years later, in June 2015, the government abolished price regulation for most medications, including all antineoplastic medications. This study examined the impacts of regulation and subsequent deregulation of prices of antineoplastic medications in China.MethodsUsing hospital procurement data and an interrupted time series with comparison series design, we examined the impacts of the policy changes on relative purchase prices (Laspeyres price index) and volumes of and spending on 52 antineoplastic medications in 699 hospitals. We identified three policy periods: prior to the initial price regulation (October 2011 to September 2012); during price regulation (October 2012 to June 2015); and after price deregulation (July 2015 to June 2016).ResultsDuring government price regulation, compared with price-unregulated cancer medications (n=22, mostly newer targeted products), the relative price of price-regulated medications (n=30, mostly chemotherapeutic products) decreased significantly (β=−0.081, p<0.001). After the government price deregulation, no significant price change occurred. Neither government price regulation nor deregulation had a significant impact on average volumes of or average spending on all antineoplastic medications immediately after the policy changes or in the longer term (p>0.05).ConclusionCompared with unregulated antineoplastics, the prices of regulated antineoplastic medications decreased after setting price caps and did not increase after deregulation. To control the rapid growth of oncology medication expenditures, more effective measures than price regulation through price caps for traditional chemotherapy are needed.
In an effort to relieve the pressure of drug shortages, the Chinese government implemented Low-price Medicines (LPM) policy to raise the price cap in July 2014. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of the implementation of this policy on drug price in China. Price data of 491 LPM, including 218 low-price chemical medicines (LPCM) and 273 low-price traditional Chinese medicines (LPTCM), were collected from 699 hospitals. We used interrupted time series design to identify the variation of monthly Laspeyres Indexes (LI) and Paasche Indexes (PI) for LPM, LPCM, and LPTCM. The result demonstrated that although LPM expenditures increased, the proportion of LPM expenditures accounting for all medicine expenditures fell from 3.6% to 3.2%. After the implementation of LPM policy, there was a significant increasing trend in LPM-PI, LPCM-PI, and LPTCM-PI. The trend in LPM-LI and LPCM-LI was found from descending to rising. However, for LPTCM, the trend in the LI remained to decrease after the policy implementation. Despite the LPM policy had an increasing impact on the LPM drug price, the proportion of LPM expenditures accounting for all medicine expenditures did not increase. More efforts are needed in the future to promote the rational drug use in China.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.