
95% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
POLICY AND PRACTICE REVIEWS article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Drugs Outcomes Research and Policies
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1557876
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
As a commercial trade with a public nature, the pharmaceutical industry is related to the interests of many consumers. It is important for many countries to carry out antitrust regulations in this industry, but there are differences in regulatory paths and specific practices (terms such as "anti-monopoly" and "antitrust" are used interchangeably, this study uses "antitrust" to maintain consistency in terminology). A key characteristic of the U.S. system is that courts play a leading role in interpreting and applying abstract antitrust laws, whereas Chinese administrative enforcement agencies directly apply specifically identified antitrust provisions for uniform regulation. Despite differences, pharmaceutical antitrust regulations in both countries ultimately aim to protect consumer welfare. This study examines the timelines of pharmaceutical antitrust regulation, the fields of regulation, the types of monopoly behavior and behavioral performances in two countries, and further analyses the differences in the regulatory paths and means, as well as the similarities and differences in the effects of regulation, in comparison with the current state of pharmaceutical antitrust regulation in the United States and China. The analysis serves as a valuable reference for the future development of pharmaceutical antitrust regulation in China.
Keywords: pharmaceutical industry, Anti-monopoly regulation, Antitrust regulation, United States of America, China, comparative study
Received: 12 Jan 2025; Accepted: 01 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Weng and Liu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Nailiang Liu, Center for Competition Law and Policy, Law School, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.