IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0318509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the impacts of volume-based procurement policy on spatial accessibility of antidepressants via generic substitution: A four-city cohort study using drug sales data

Author

Listed:
  • Aoming Xue
  • Qingyuan Xue
  • Jiahong Fu
  • Keye Fan
  • Jiale Zhang
  • Peiyan Cai
  • Yuanyuan Kuang
  • Yingsong Chen
  • Jifang Zhou
  • Bin Jiang

Abstract

Objective: To assess the spatial accessibility and inequality of antidepressants and its correlation with VBP (Volume-based procurement) policy using procurement data from four representative Chinese cities between 2018 and 2020. Methods: The least-cost-path algorithm was employed to calculate travel time from each population point to the nearest medical institution. Gini coefficient and Theil index were utilized to measure accessibility and inequality. OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) and mediation analysis were used to investigate potential statistical relationships. Results: Under the influence of the VBP policy, we observed varying degrees of growth in the procurement volumes of two antidepressants across different cities (Escitalopram: Beijing 30.3%, Shanghai 26.2%, Ningbo 37.4%, Harbin 25.7%; Paroxetine: Beijing 28.2%, Shanghai 1.2%, Ningbo 50.2%, Harbin 590.5%). The increase in the procurement volumes of antidepressants across cities was primarily driven by generic drugs (Escitalopram: Beijing 159.8%, Shanghai 75.0%, Ningbo 146.4%, Harbin 146.3%; Paroxetine: Beijing 67.3%, Shanghai 4.9%, Ningbo 58.0%, Harbin 15,758.3%). In the results on spatial inequality, we observed annual improvements across all cities, with more pronounced progress in economically underdeveloped regions (Escitalopram: Gini in Harbin decreased by 10.6%; Paroxetine: Gini in Harbin decreased by 32.6%). In Beijing, the substitution of generic escitalopram was found to be a partial mediating factor in the improvement of spatial inequality (ACME = -0.00, p-value = 0.01; ADE = -0.00, p-value = 0.02). In Harbin, the substitution of generic paroxetine was identified as a complete mediating factor for spatial inequality (ACME = -0.04, p-value = 0.01; ADE = 0.01, p-value = 0.14). Conclusions: This study found that the spatial accessibility and inequality of antidepressant medications gradually improved under the influence of the VBP policy. These improvements can be partially attributed to the substitution of generic drugs.

Suggested Citation

  • Aoming Xue & Qingyuan Xue & Jiahong Fu & Keye Fan & Jiale Zhang & Peiyan Cai & Yuanyuan Kuang & Yingsong Chen & Jifang Zhou & Bin Jiang, 2025. "Quantifying the impacts of volume-based procurement policy on spatial accessibility of antidepressants via generic substitution: A four-city cohort study using drug sales data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0318509
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318509
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318509&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0318509?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristin Blesch & Oliver P. Hauser & Jon M. Jachimowicz, 2022. "Measuring inequality beyond the Gini coefficient may clarify conflicting findings," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(11), pages 1525-1536, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jianu Ionuț & Tudorache Maria-Daniela & Nicolescu Andreea Florentina, 2024. "Investigating the Effects of Education and Labour Market Challenges on Income Inequality," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 18(1), pages 1950-1958.
    2. Anson Au, 2023. "Reassessing the econometric measurement of inequality and poverty: toward a cost-of-living approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Tom Celig & Tim Alvaro Ockenga & Detlef Schoder, 2025. "Distributional equality in Ethereum? On-chain analysis of Ether supply distribution and supply dynamics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Tang, Cheng Keat & Macchia, Lucía & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2023. "Income is more protective against pain in more equal countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    5. Kim, Min Kyong & Bhattacharya, Jayanta & Bhattacharya, Joydeep, 2024. "Is income inequality linked to infectious disease prevalence? A hypothesis-generating study using tuberculosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
    6. Sirkku Juhola & Janina Käyhkö, 2023. "Maladaptation as a concept and a metric in national adaptation policy- Should we, would we, could we?," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(5), pages 1-11, May.
    7. Joseph L. Gastwirth & Richard Luo & Qing Pan, 2024. "A statistical examination of wealth inequality within the Forbes 400 richest families in the United States from 2000 to 2023," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 82(3), pages 329-344, December.
    8. Mary Luz Mouronte-López & Juana Savall Ceres, 2024. "Exploring socioeconomic similarity-inequality: a regional perspective," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Jon M. Jachimowicz & Shai Davidai & Daniela Goya‐Tocchetto & Barnabas Szaszi & Martin V. Day & Stephanie J. Tepper & L. Taylor Phillips & M. Usman Mirza & Nailya Ordabayeva & Oliver P. Hauser, 2023. "Inequality in researchers’ minds: Four guiding questions for studying subjective perceptions of economic inequality," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 1534-1561, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0318509. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.