The impact of National Centralized Drug Procurement policy on the use of policy-related original and generic drugs in public medical institutions in China: A difference-in-difference analysis based on national database

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, the substitution use of generic drugs against original drugs is an important practice for drug costs control ¹. Generic drugs with quality assurance can provide patients with alternative treatment options that are safe, effective, and economical ². China is the largest developing country in the world, the generic drugs of high quality and low price are still the important source and means of satisfying the essential drug needs of the Chinese public. However, in China, there are a large number of generic pharmaceutical companies, but the quality level of generic drugs produced is quite uneven ³. Coupled with the slow progress of generic consistency evaluation, the substitution rate of generic drugs has been low, and Chinese patients rely heavily on imported original drugs ⁴. The use proportion of original drugs ranged from 44% to 95% by expenditures in China ^5–8. Besides, expired patented drugs had not experienced a “patent cliff” in China ⁹, which still hold much higher prices in the Chinese market than those in the international market, showing that the Chinese public does not get low prices that match the world’s largest markets ^5,6.

Since 2012, the Chinese government has successively introduced a series of policies to promote the consistency evaluation of generic drugs ³. In 2018, significant progress was made in the generic consistency evaluation work, with 57 drugs passed evaluation ¹⁰. The promotion of generic consistency evaluation work provided an important basis for the drug quality assurance of drug procurement ¹¹. In January 2019, the General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) issued the National Centralized Drug Procurement (NCDP) policy ¹², which is the first volume-based drug procurement work at the national level in China. In the NCDP policy, original drugs, as well as generic drugs that have passed the consistency evaluation of quality and efficacy are assigned as the drug participation criteria. The National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) gathered the purchase needs of all public medical institutions in the pilot cities, and conducted price negotiation with pharmaceutical enterprises. The first round of the NCDP pilot was implemented in 4 municipalities (Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing) and 7 sub-provincial cities (Shenyang, Dalian, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, and Xi’an) in mainland China, thus, this pilot is also known as “4+7” policy. The “4+7” policy adopted the rule of a single company winning bid, 25 drugs (by generic name) in the “4+7” List were successfully purchased, of which three original products won the bid (gefitinib, fosinopril, and flurbiprofen) ¹³.

One of the original intentions of the NCDP policy is to promote the healthy development of China’s pharmaceutical industry. Wang et al. ¹⁴ investigated 11 drugs (by generic name) in a tertiary hospital in Shanghai and found that the ratio of the daily cost of generic drugs to original drugs significantly decreased (from 0.87 to 0.39) after “4+7” policy, and the proportion of the volume and expenditures of generic drugs raised prominently, increasing by 26.2 and 7.86 percentage points respectively. Zou et al.’s study ¹⁵ conducted in a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou pointed out that the NCDP policy effectively promoted the use of domestic generic drugs, thereby saving drug costs by substituting original drugs. The implementation of the NCDP policy might play a positive role in increasing the market share of domestic generic drug enterprises. Worldwide, it is a common practice to achieve the reduction of drug costs by encouraging the substitution use of generic drugs against original drugs ^1,16. In China, previous studies have found that, through the drug price reduction at the direct level and the increasing use of generic drugs at the indirect level, “4+7” policy was conducive to reducing the pharmaceutical expenditures ^14,15,17,18.

In China, the use structure of original and generic drugs differs remarkably between regions with different economic levels and different types or levels of medical institutions ⁵. However, previous relevant pieces of evidence mainly came from a single hospital, and the methods were mainly descriptive analysis, indicating that the representativeness of existing research evidence is insufficient. In this study, we obtained the data of nine “4+7” pilot cities and twelve non-pilot provinces from a national database – China Drug Supply Information Platform (CDSIP), and applied Difference-in-Difference (DID) analysis to assess the effect of “4+7” policy on the use of policy-related original and generic drugs in public medical institutions in China.

METHODS

Sample selection

In this study, the inclusion criteria of samples were as follows: (a) The drug scope was “4+7” policy-related drugs, including 25 drugs (by generic name) in the “4+7” List and the alternative drugs (APPENDIX A). The alternative drugs referred to drugs that have an alternative relationship with “4+7” List drugs in clinical use, and was determined according to the Monitoring Plan for the Pilot Work of National Centralized Drug Procurement and Use issued by the NHSA ²¹. The”4+7” List drugs were then divided into bid-winning products and non-winning products according to the “4+7” city centralized drug procurement bid-winning results ¹³. (b) The time period covered 23 months from January 2018 to November 2019. (c) The scope of regions included pilot cities (pilot group) and non-pilot provinces (control group). The pilot group involved nine “4+7” pilot cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Xi’an, Shenyang, Dalian, and Xiamen. Two (Guangzhou and Shenzhen) of the eleven “4+7” pilot cities were not included in this study, because their purchase order data in the CDSIP database was incomplete. The control group involved 12 provinces that did not implement the “4+7” pilot policy, including Hubei, Hunan, Guizhou, Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Hainan, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang. (d) The scope of medical institutions was all the public medical institutions in the pilot group and control group. Public medical institution was divided into tertiary public hospital, secondary public hospital, and government-run primary medical institution. Purchase order records with incomplete information were excluded.

Finally, a total of 122 policy-related drugs (by generic name) were included in this study, including 25 “4+7” List drugs and 97 alternative drugs. The flow chart of the sample selection process is shown in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Flow chart of sample screening.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used. We first described the change of purchase volume, purchase expenditures, and DDDc of the included original and generic drugs in the corresponding period before (March to November 2018) and after (March to November 2019) the implementation of “4+7” policy. Besides, we described the change of composition ratio between original and generic drugs in the volume and expenditures before and after “4+7” policy.

This study employed the Difference-in-Difference method. DID is a method commonly used for the quantitative effect evaluation of public policies or projects. By effectively combining “the difference before and after intervention” with “the difference with or without intervention”, this method to a certain extent can control the influence of some factors other than intervention, so as to estimate the net impacts of the intervention on the outcome variable ^24–26. In this study, we constructed DID models by using the time series data in the pilot group and control group, to eliminate the net effect of the “4+7” policy on the use of original and generic drugs. The DID model is expressed as follows: Where, Y refers to the outcome variables in this study. T_t refers to “4+7” policy intervention with the value of 0 and 1, and 0 represents the pre-”4+7” policy period (from January 2018 to February 2019) and 1 represents the post-”4+7” policy period (from March 2019 to November 2019). G_t represents groups with the value of 0 and 1, and 0 represents the control group and 1 represents the pilot group. ε_t is the error term, representing random errors that cannot be explained by variables in the model. β₀ represents the constant term. β₁ estimates the change of the outcome variable in the post-”4+7” policy period compared with the pre-”4+7” policy period. β₂ estimates the change of the outcome variable in the pilot group compared with the control group. β₃ is the interaction item between intervention measures and groups, which represents the net effect of the “4+7” policy. The relative change of the outcome variable after “4+7” policy was expressed as β₃/ β₀²⁷. In this study, we observed the monthly trends of each outcome variable between the pilot group and control group before the policy intervention, to verify if the DID model met the parallel trend conditions (APPENDIX C) ²⁸. Stata version 16.0 was used to perform the analyses above. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The change of composition ratio between original and generic drugs

After the implementation of “4+7” policy, the volume proportion of generics among bid-winning products slightly increased from 92.98% to 98.06%, generics among non-winning products significantly decreased from 56.08% to 27.93%. Among the “4+7” List drugs, the volume proportion of generic drugs increased from 60.73% to 77.80%, and the expenditure proportion increased from 49.45% to 52.30% (Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Changes in the volume proportion and expenditure proportion of original drugs and generic drugs in the pilot cities. Note: Pre-intervention period refers to March to November 2018; Post-intervention period refers to March to November 2019.

Figure 3. presents the use proportion of generics among “4+7” List drugs in each pilot city. After policy intervention, the volume proportion of generic drugs increased in all of the nine pilot cities, with the increasing value ranging from 10.88% (Shanghai) to 47.18% (Xiamen). In the post-”4+7” period, with the exception of Beijing (61.67%), the volume proportion of generics in the remaining 8 cities exceeded 80%.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

The volume and expenditure proportion of generics among “4+7” List drugs in nine “4+7” pilot cities. Note: Pre-intervention period refers to March to November 2018; Post-intervention period refers to March to November 2019.

Furtherly, we calculated the proportion of generic product in each “4+7” List drug (Table 2). For 20 of the 25 “4+7” List drugs, the volume proportion of generics increased after policy intervention, with the increased value ranging from 0.64% (pemetrexed disodium) to 27.42% (montelukast). Three drugs appeared the decreased volume proportion of generic drugs: olanzapine (−2.33%), fosinopril (−26.57%), and gefitinib (−10.39%). In the post-”4+7” policy period, the overall volume proportion of generics among “4+7” List drugs was 77.80%, and 11 of them demonstrated a proportion of more than 90%.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2.

Changes in the volume proportion and expenditure proportion of generic drugs among 25 “4+7” List drugs in the pilot cities.

Besides, we calculated the use proportion of bid-winning drugs and non-winning original drugs, since they represent a relatively high level of drug quality. After policy intervention, the volume proportion of bid-winning products and non-winning original drugs raised prominently from 39.66% to 91.93%, and the expenditure proportion increased from 63.52% to 80.19%.

DISCUSSION

In this study, a significant drop of 33.20% and 75.74% were observed in the DDDc of bid-winning original and generic drugs, indicating that the “4+7” policy greatly reduced the price of bid-winning drugs. According to the cross-price elasticity theory, in a group of drugs with a substitution relationship, the percentage change in quantity demanded for one product in response to a percentage change in the price of another product ^29,30. Wang et al. ³¹ reported that the Fisher Price index of non-winning drugs dropped significantly in Shenzhen after the 4+7 policy, which well verified this theory. In the present study, the DID analysis reported a significant reduction of 0.54 CNY in the DDDc of non-winning original drugs, indicating that there might be a linkage price reduction effect for non-winning original drugs under NCDP policy, which might be conducive to restrain the long-term unreasonable high prices of drugs in China ³². However, the DDDc of non-winning generic drugs markedly increased by 3.64 CNY, leading to an increase of 17.89% in the DDDc of the overall non-winning drugs after policy intervention. Besides, the further subgroup analysis found that an increase of DDDc for non-winning generic drugs mainly occurred in tertiary (100.77%) and secondary public hospitals (54.01%). The NHSA of the PRC clearly stipulated that the winning bid price is used as the medical insurance payment standard, and encourages the clinical use of bid-winning drugs. However, in China, the financial relationship between pharmaceutical companies and hospitals/prescribers has not been completely cut off ^33,34, and Chinese physicians still have the motivation to prescribe non-winning drugs. Therefore, the increase in DDDc of non-winning generic drugs may be related to the increase in the average daily dose of related drugs.

This study included the non-centralized purchased drugs that had an alternative relationship with the 25 centralized purchased drugs in clinical use, among which neither original drugs nor generic drugs had a significant change in the DDDc after the implementation of “4+7” policy. This finding is consistent with Wang et al.’s report in Shenzhen ³¹. As mentioned above, NCDP policy triggered linkage price reduction effect, while the effect might still be very limited and has not yet spread to the alternative drugs. In addition, subgroup analysis revealed that the DDDc of alternative generic drugs increased in the primary medical institutions, suggesting the need to strengthen the use management of non-centralized purchased drugs in primary medical institutions.

It is known that, among the 25 “4+7” List drugs, only 3 drugs were original drug company won the bid ¹³. The present study found that the use proportion of generic drugs in the “4+7” List drugs increased from 60.73% to 77.80% under the policy intervention, that is, 17.08% of the original drugs were replaced by generic drugs in the pilot cities. International experiences reach an agreement that it is a feasible practice for developing countries to control drug costs by encouraging the substitution use of generic drugs ¹. Meanwhile, it is an important mission of China’s pharmaceutical supply guarantee system reform to promote the development and innovation of the Chinese pharmaceutical industry and improve the international competitiveness of domestic enterprises ³⁵. This study found that the expenditures of “4+7” List drugs dropped by 98.57% after the policy, and the expenditure proportion of generic drugs slightly increased. It can be seen that, by guiding the adjustment of the use structure of original and generic drugs, NCDP policy played positive effects on controlling drug costs and forcing the development of domestic pharmaceutical enterprises ³⁶.

Nine pilot cities were involved in the present study, and they varied in the changes of use structure between original and generic drugs under policy intervention. For example, in Xiamen and Shenyang, 47.2% and 29.1% of the original drugs were substituted by generic drugs, while the proportions were only 10.9% and 15.2% in Shanghai and Chongqing. Such differences between pilot cities might be related to the initiative and effectiveness of local governments in implementing the national biding results. What’s more, the baseline drug use structure of a certain city should be considered ^5–8, for the cities with a higher use proportion of original drugs prior to policy implementation, there is naturally more space for generics substitution.

In different types of public medical institutions, different changes were found in the use structure between original and generic drugs. After “4+7” policy, the growth rate of generics in the “4+7” List drugs showed a trend of tertiary (84.95%) > secondary (42.62%) > primary medical institutions (29.17%), consistently, the increased value in the use proportion of generics presented the same trend of tertiary (25.27%) > secondary (15.08%) > primary medical institutions (12.00%). Clearly, the generic substitution induced by NCDP policy was more widespread in large hospitals, which might be related to their higher baseline use proportion of original drugs, as well as their greater space for generics substitution ^5,6.

Meanwhile, it is indicated that the policy management and implementation of large hospitals might be better.

We also recognized that the changes of use structure between original and generics products varied greatly for each “4+7” List drug (by generic name) under “4+7” policy. For example, the top three drugs with the largest increment in the use proportion of generics were Montelukast (27.42%), Atorvastatin (26.34%), and Levetiracetam (25.27%). Similarly, the baseline use structure between original and generic products for each “4+7” List drug in different cities should be taken into account. Meanwhile, it is suggested to strengthen the analysis and evaluation regarding the differences between original drugs and generic drugs in quality and efficacy ², and provide decision-making support for the safe substitution of generic drugs.

According to the NHSA of the PRC, the use proportion of high-quality drugs, i.e. original drugs and generics passed consistency evaluation, increased from 50% to more than 90% in eleven “4+7” pilot cities after the implementation of “4+7 policy ³⁷. This data illustrates that the policy is conducive to improving the overall quality level of drug use in China. In this study, we calculated the use proportion of bid-winning products and non-winning original drugs in 9 pilot cities, and found that the proportion raised prominently from 39.66% to 91.93%, with the increment of 52.27 percentage points. This finding is generally in line with the NHSA’s report³⁷. In the future, with the continuous promotion of NCDP policy, generic drugs that fail to pass the consistent evaluation will be phased out of the market, and the drug use of the Chinese public will gradually concentrate on high-quality medicines ³⁸. In addition, we found that, in different types of medical institutions, the increased value of the use proportion of bid-winning products and non-winning original drugs showed a trend of tertiary (25.92 percentage points) < secondary (47.99 percentage points) < primary medical institutions (49.52 percentage points). This revealed that NCDP policy has great accessibility and plenty of patients can benefit from this policy at the community level.

There is a lot of controversy regarding the quality consistency between the generic drugs passed the consistency evaluation and original drugs. Previous researchers proposed that the bioequivalence identified in the generic consistency evaluation is not exactly equivalent to clinical pharmacological equivalence ^39,40. For example, He et al. ⁴¹ and Gu et al. ⁴² mentioned that some of the bid-winning generic drugs in “4+7” policy were observed with poor therapeutic efficacy and increased adverse reactions compared to the original drugs. Conversely, a lasted multicenter prospective study regarding antihypertensive drugs found no significant differences between generic and brand-name antihypertensive drugs in the efficacy and prognosis among Chinese hypertensive patients ⁴³. Therefore, it is suggested to make full use of large-scale real-world data, and further carry out clinical comprehensive evaluation based on real-world evidence, to provide evidence support for consolidating the drug quality basis of NCDP policy.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, 11 cities were selected as pilot cities in the “4+7” policy, while this study only included 9 pilot cities for analysis due to the incomplete data of two pilot cities (Guangzhou and Shenzhen) in the CDSIP database. Besides, considering the impact of the COVID 2019 epidemic in the first half of 2020, this study only used the data from January 2018 to December 2019, while the policy implementation was less than one complete procurement cycle during this period. Thus, this study has a certain imperfection in terms of sample cities and study periods. Second, this study used drug purchase data, rather than drug use data (such as prescriptions). Although there is strong consistency between purchase data and use data under a series of policies, there is still a possibility that the two data sources may not exactly match, so there are certain limitations. Therefore, in the future, further in-depth analysis by using clinical use data of policy-related drugs might make more sense.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of “4+7” policy promoted the substitution use of generic drugs against original drugs in 9 pilot cities, with the substitution ratio of 17.8% among the “4+7” List drugs. The substitution use of generic drugs played a positive role in drug costs saving and the development of domestic pharmaceutical enterprises. After the implementation of “4+7” policy, the DDDc of bid-winning generic and original drugs significantly dropped, as well as the DDDc of non-winning original drugs. While the increased DDDc of non-winning generic drugs draws the importance of further monitoring. We also found that the implementation of “4+7” policy significantly improved the overall quality level of drug use of public medical institutions, especially in primary medical institutions.

CRediT author statement

Jing Wang: Conceptualization, Data curation, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Ying Yang: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Luxinyi Xu: Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Yuan Shen: Data curation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Xiaotong Wen: Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Lining Mao: Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Quan Wang: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Dan Cui: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Zongfu Mao: Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Global Health Institute, Wuhan University, China. The role of funding body included designing the study, analysis and interpretation of data, and writing the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics statement

This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Faculty of Medical Sciences, Wuhan University (IRB number: 2019YF2050). In this study, we only included the drug procurement information and all the information was anonymous. Neither patients nor the public were involved in this research.

Data availability statement

The data used in this study is not publicly available. The dataset (CDSIP database) used and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. In this study, no additional data is used.

Patient and public involvement

No patient involved.