No. | Brand Substitution | Intensity | Situation | Explanation | Proportion | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Yes | High | Complete substitution | Bid-non-winning brands were only or partially used before policy intervention, while only bid-winning brands were used after policy intervention | 6.82% | 43.18% |
2 | Middle | Partial substitution | Utilization volume of bid-winning brands increased after policy intervention, progressively substituting for bid-non-winning brands | 36.36% | ||
3 | No | No substitution | â‘ Bid-winning brands were used both before and after policy intervention, brand selection did not change while dddc and ddds changed; â‘¡DDDc of bid-non-winning brands decreased after policy intervention, medical institutions did not raise the proportion of bid-winning brands | 40.90% | 40.90% | |
4 | Alternation of varieties | Policy-related drugs came into use after policy intervention | Policy-related drugs were not used before policy intervention and came into use after policy intervention | 9.09% | 15.91% | |
5 | Policy-related drugs no longer used after policy intervention | Policy-related drugs were no longer used after policy intervention | 6.82% |