关键词: 带量采购政策, 研发, 营销, 医药制造企业, 绩效

Abstract:   In the face of fierce competition, rampant viruses and constantly adjusted health care reform policies, should pharmaceutical manufacturers win through marketing or R&D? Taking two typical enterprises, Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd and Harbin Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd, as cases, the author used the longitudinal double case comparison study method to list the typical matters in marketing and R&D in each development stage of the case enterprises according to the time series, compared the performance differences between the two enterprises under different marketing and R&D strategies, and demonstrated how marketing and R&D affect the enterprise performance. The study also introduced the "4+7" Volume Procurement Policy and compared the performance of the two companies after the implementation of the policy to illustrate the difference in risk resistance and performance sustainability between the two enterprises, so as to further illustrate whether pharmaceutical manufacturers should win by marketing or by R&D.The following conclusions were obtained from this research. Firstly, advertising and marketing can expand brand awareness of generic drugs in the short term, bring brand effect, increase the added value of generic drugs and improve corporate performance, but in the long term, without focusing on R&D and innovative drug output, marketing alone cannot ensure sustainable and stable corporate performance. Secondly, improving drug quality and forming high value-added innovative drugs through R&D innovation is conducive to improving enterprise gross margin and anti-risk ability, while the marketing and promotion of innovative drugs need high marketing expenses to support. Thirdly, R&D innovation can improve the quality of generic drugs, which is conducive to passing the consistency evaluation of drugs and entering centralized procurement, and the winning products can realize the quantity for price and keep the market share. Finally, the "4+7" Volume Procurement Policy can achieve real volume for price and failure to win the bid means to lose the market. Pharmaceutical manufacturers should be driven by both marketing and R&D in order to be stable and far-reaching. From the above conclusions, the following insights can be drawn. First, in the face of changes in the domestic and international pharmaceutical market and intensified competition, combining R&D and marketing as a two-wheel drive is the way to the foundation of pharmaceutical manufacturers. Secondly, in the face of the Volume Procurement Policy, pharmaceutical manufacturers should, on the one hand, timely adjust their investment direction, focus on R&D innovation and improve drug quality, and, on the other hand, actively participate in centralized procurement to retain the market and provide continuous financial support for R&D innovation. This paper innovatively adopted a case study approach to explore why and how R&D and marketing affect the performance of pharmaceutical manufacturers. It has not only answered the question of whether pharmaceutical manufacturers should win in R&D or marketing, but also expanded the research on the effect of Volume Procurement Policy. The findings of the study can both enrich the theories related to the relationship between marketing, R&D and corporate performance and provide useful references for corporate investment decisions after the implementation of the band purchasing policy. 

Key words: volume procurement policy, research and development (R&D), marketing, pharmaceutical manufacturer, performance