China’s Cyberspace Administration, working with the National Healthcare Security Administration, has launched a targeted campaign to remove false and misleading online content about the state’s centralized drug and medical‑consumables procurement programme. Regulators said they identified and took action against a number of social‑media accounts on platforms including Douyin, Weibo and Xiaohongshu for fabricating claims about product quality, falsely linking non‑procured items to the procurement list, and spreading rumours that imported medicines were pulling out of China.
The public notice summarised three recurring tactics: inventing or repackaging claims to discredit the procurement policy and attract clicks; stoking anxiety by pitting originator drugs against generics and inventing narratives that prompt people to buy supplements or expensive insurance; and deliberately conflating ordinary market products with those under state procurement to erode trust in the programme. Authorities said the identified accounts have been handled “in accordance with law and platform rules.”
The move is aimed at protecting a policy that sits at the intersection of health, finance and industrial policy. China’s centralised procurement—often called “volume‑based procurement”—was introduced to drive down prices by aggregating demand and awarding contracts to fewer suppliers, encouraging competition among generics and cutting costs for patients and the medical insurance fund. The policy has redistributed market share, squeezed margins for some suppliers and repeatedly provoked heated public debate whenever stories surface questioning drug safety or availability.
Misinformation that misstates which products are on the procurement list, or asserts that foreign branded drugs are exiting the market, can have tangible effects: panic buying, diversion of patients to unregulated channels, and pressure on hospitals and pharmacies that must navigate formularies and reimbursement rules. Regulators framed their enforcement as both a public‑health measure and an effort to safeguard the credibility of the procurement mechanism, warning that fabricating or amplifying false information will be punished.
The enforcement action is also part of a broader pattern: Beijing has been tightening supervision of online content and platform governance across sectors, demanding that platforms take responsibility for policing false information and for cooperating with state agencies. For platforms and content creators this means higher compliance costs and swifter takedowns; for pharmaceutical companies—especially foreign originators—there is a heightened reputational and regulatory environment in which market narratives are tightly managed.
For international observers the episode is a reminder that China’s health‑policy reforms are not just technical market interventions but also a political project that requires public consent and informational control. Companies and investors with exposure to China’s drug and medical‑device markets should expect more active coordination between health and cyber regulators, a lower tolerance for disruptive online narratives, and the possibility that enforcement will be used to curb both dangerous misinformation and persistent public criticism of policy outcomes.