| Literature DB >> 33302978 |
Xiaofeng Jiang1,2,3, Ping He4, Dawei Zhu4, Xuefeng Shi5, Qingyue Meng6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a key part of the new round of health reform, the zero-markup drug policy (ZMDP) removed the profit margins of drug sales at public health care facilities, and had some effects to the operation of these institutions. This study aims to assess whether the ZMDP has different impacts between county general and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) hospitals.Entities:
Keywords: County general hospitals; County traditional Chinese medicine hospitals; Difference-in-difference; Dynamic effects; Zero-markup drug policy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33302978 PMCID: PMC7726895 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-020-01326-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Fig. 1Number of county hospitals and the inception of the ZMDP
Characteristics of the study hospitals (n = 19,089)
| Variable | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|
| Share of revenue from medicine sales (%) | 44.20 | 9.63 |
| Revenue from medicine sales (Million Yuan) | 60.66 | 61.34 |
| Revenue from medical care service (Million Yuan) | 85.66 | 97.02 |
| Government subsidies (Million Yuan) | 6.87 | 12.07 |
| Revenue and expenditure surplus (Million Yuan) | 5.60 | 18.79 |
| Gross revenue (Million Yuan) | 155.38 | 162.72 |
| Number of annual outpatient visits (Thousand) | 243.83 | 221.39 |
| Number of annual inpatient visits (Thousand) | 20.21 | 16.67 |
| Number of medical staff | 539.24 | 383.50 |
| Number of hospital beds | 510.79 | 376.50 |
Fig. 2Overall effect of the ZMDP at county hospitals by hospital types
Estimated average impact of the ZMDP on county hospitals by hospital types
| Variables | Ln share of revenue from medicine sales | Ln revenue from medicine sales | Ln revenue from medical care service | Ln government subsidies | Ln revenue and expenditure surplus | Ln gross revenue | Ln number of annual outpatient visits | Ln number of annual inpatient visits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policy | − 0.180*** (0.021) | − 0.275*** (0.043) | 0.029 (0.026) | 1.096*** (0.196) | 0.035 (0.041) | −0.052* (0.024) | 0.056 (0.031) | −0.011 (0.034) |
| Policy *TCM | 0.070** (0.021) | 0.152** (0.049) | 0.058 (0.037) | −0.458** (0.159) | −0.029 (0.017) | 0.066 (0.038) | −0.175*** (0.044) | − 0.043 (0.056) |
| Observations | 1967 | 1967 | 1967 | 1912 | 1966 | 1967 | 1967 | 1965 |
| R-squared | 0.563 | 0.781 | 0.912 | 0.355 | 0.006 | 0.893 | 0.596 | 0.594 |
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Fig. 3Dynamic effect of the ZMDP at county hospitals by hospital types
Dynamic effect of the ZMDP at county hospitals by hospital types
| Variables | Ln share of revenue from medicine sales | Ln revenue from medicine sales | Ln revenue from medical care service | Ln government subsidies | Ln revenue and expenditure surplus | Ln gross revenue | Ln number of annual outpatient visits | Ln number of annual inpatient visits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the adoption year | −0.184*** (0.022) | −0.282*** (0.044) | 0.032 (0.027) | 1.032*** (0.219) | 0.034 (0.039) | −0.059* (0.026) | 0.022 (0.030) | −0.003 (0.037) |
| 1 year after adoption | −0.202*** (0.027) | − 0.337*** (0.059) | 0.004 (0.036) | 1.141*** (0.240) | 0.032 (0.048) | −0.071* (0.035) | 0.058 (0.039) | 0.012 (0.048) |
| 2 years after adoption | −0.207*** (0.035) | −0.362*** (0.076) | − 0.010 (0.049) | 1.051** (0.313) | 0.049 (0.057) | −0.099* (0.046) | 0.065 (0.051) | 0.047 (0.069) |
| 3 or more years after adoption | −0.251*** (0.054) | −0.494*** (0.113) | − 0.071 (0.063) | 1.211* (0.512) | 0.022 (0.053) | −0.165* (0.064) | 0.086 (0.079) | 0.051 (0.096) |
| the adoption year *TCM | 0.058* (0.024) | 0.130* (0.055) | 0.048 (0.039) | −0.517** (0.177) | −0.027 (0.019) | 0.057 (0.043) | −0.124** (0.043) | − 0.052 (0.077) |
| 1 year after adoption *TCM | 0.068** (0.023) | 0.147** (0.051) | 0.056 (0.041) | −0.257 (0.180) | −0.028 (0.017) | 0.058 (0.041) | −0.148** (0.046) | − 0.047 (0.050) |
| 2 years after adoption *TCM | 0.087*** (0.025) | 0.154** (0.047) | 0.035 (0.040) | −0.432* (0.205) | −0.044* (0.020) | 0.051 (0.040) | −0.205*** (0.054) | − 0.046 (0.056) |
| 3 or more years after adoption *TCM | 0.038 (0.032) | 0.130 (0.082) | 0.101 (0.067) | −0.808 (0.445) | −0.010 (0.014) | 0.092 (0.066) | −0.294*** (0.077) | 0.023 (0.067) |
| Observations | 1967 | 1967 | 1967 | 1912 | 1966 | 1967 | 1967 | 1965 |
| R-squared | 0.568 | 0.784 | 0.913 | 0.356 | 0.006 | 0.894 | 0.599 | 0.596 |
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Parallel trend test assuming the reform happened 2 or 3 years ahead
| Ln share of revenue from medicine sales | Ln revenue from medicine sales | Ln revenue from medical care service | Ln government subsidies | Ln revenue and expenditure surplus | Ln gross revenue | Ln number of annual outpatient visits | Ln number of annual inpatient visits | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pseudo-reform A (Assumed 2 years ahead) | 0.014 (0.016) | 0.001 (0.031) | −0.019 (0.016) | −0.180 (0.159) | −0.081 (0.082) | − 0.035 (0.021) | 0.012 (0.031) | − 0.017 (0.035) |
| Observations | 1967 | 1967 | 1967 | 1912 | 1966 | 1967 | 1967 | 1965 |
| R-squared | 0.518 | 0.771 | 0.912 | 0.338 | 0.009 | 0.893 | 0.584 | 0.594 |
| Pseudo-reform B (Assumed 3 years ahead) | 0.032 (0.012)* | 0.049 (0.025)* | −0.000 (0.024) | −0.360 (0.169)* | 0.015 (0.010) | −0.009 (0.021) | 0.020 (0.029) | 0.005 (0.034) |
| Observations | 1967 | 1967 | 1967 | 1912 | 1966 | 1967 | 1967 | 1965 |
| R-squared | 0.520 | 0.771 | 0.912 | 0.340 | 0.005 | 0.893 | 0.584 | 0.593 |
All models adjusted for individual fixed effects, yearly fixed effects, medical staffs and hospital beds. Standard errors in parentheses
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05