Does China’s centralized volume-based drug procurement policy facilitate the transition from imitation to innovation for listed pharmaceutical companies? Empirical tests based on double difference model

Abstract

Introduction: The normalized implementation of the centralized volume-based procurement policy for pharmaceuticals is a concerted push for supply-side structural reform of the pharmaceutical industry in China. The impact of the centralized drug procurement policy on pharmaceutical companies' transition from imitation to innovation is investigated to test whether a positive effect occurs in the innovation landscape of the pharmaceutical market. Methods: The double difference method and a series of robustness tests were used based on data from a sample of listed pharmaceutical companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen A-shares between 2015 and 2021. Results: The study found that the centralized drug procurement policy significantly contributed to the increased intensity of innovation input in the Chinese pharmaceutical industry. In terms of regional and firm nature heterogeneity, it was found that firms in the seven provinces belonging to the three economic regions had a better increase in innovation input intensity than other regions. Firms of state-owned nature had a better increase in innovation input intensity than private companies. The mechanism test found a partial mediating effect of nearly 10% for the cost of sales rate on the innovation input intensity of listed companies and a negative mediating effect on corporate operating profit. Discussion: Further research found that the effect of centralized drug procurement policy on the improvement of innovation quality of listed pharmaceutical companies was evident. The innovation development of Chinese pharmaceutical companies no longer focused on the accumulation of innovation quantity.

Impact of National Centralized Drug Procurement policy on chemical pharmaceutical enterprises’ R&D investment: a difference-in-differences analysis in China

“…Therefore, this quasi-natural experiment model can effectively conduct quantitative evaluations and has been widely applied in the field of public health policy evaluation in recent years ( 55 ). Some scholars have already used the DID model to empirically study changes in profitability, financial performance, and innovation performance of enterprises before and after the implementation of the NCDP policy ( 23 , 56 , 57 ).…”

“…However, there is scarce literature that explores the impact of the NCDP policy on enterprises’ R&D investment from the perspective of stakeholders. Most of previous research focus on theoretical analysis ( 19–21 ) and lack empirical studies ( 22 , 23 ). From the theoretical perspective, scholars have conflicting views.…”

Quantitative evaluation of the medicine innovation policy in China: based on the PMC-Index model

“…For example, Liu et al ( 23 ) applied the difference-in-differences model to find that the generic consistency evaluation policy has a positive impact on the innovation quality of the Chinese pharmaceutical industry. Gu et al ( 24 ) adopted listed medicine companies in the Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share markets as samples and empirically found that centralized drug procurement policy has a significant improvement on the quality of medicine innovation. In addition, the qualitative evaluation of medicine innovation policies in existing research mainly concentrates on the specific interpretation of policy content.…”

Research on the impact of China’s reform to delegate power, streamline administration, and optimize government services on the technology innovation efficiency of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry

“…China's pharmaceutical policies have been introduced intensively to address this industry's special status. The Drug Administration, National Health Insurance Administration, and National Health and Health Commission are linked to reform and have been adjusting the base drug catalog, piloting DRG/DIP payment reform (2), promoting health insurance and health insurance fund reform, improving the traceability system and medical device management, carrying out the consistent evaluation of generic drug quality and efficacy, and organizing several national centralized drug volume-based procurements (3). The government encourages enterprises to research and develop innovations to improve quality and efficiency.…”