Price Cap Models in Pharmaceutical Online-to-Offline Supply Chains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmaceutical supply chains are often highly complex with conflicting objectives of social welfare and profit maximization. Furthermore, there are various stakeholders including pharmaceutical manufacturer, distributors, retailers, patients, and the government. In this paper, we consider a two-stage supply chain consisting of one pharmaceutical manufacturer and a pharmacy with online and offline channels. We focus on four price cap models: no price cap regulation, pharmaceutical manufacturer’s price cap regulation, pharmacy price cap regulation, and linkage price cap regulation. We apply game theory, investigate how the price cap regulations affect the firms’ pricing, and evaluate the economic performance and social welfare of the dual-channel pharmaceutical supply chain. Our findings show that first, like the single-channel pharmaceutical supply chain, the profit of the regulated firm always decreases and the profit of the unregulated firm always increases when they are under one-sided price cap regulations. Second, the impacts of the linkage price cap regulation on the supply chain are more complicated depending on the linkage coefficient and market share. Overall, our findings can provide theoretical and practical insights to help the government devise price cap regulations for complex modern pharmaceutical supply chains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".