Mixed-methods study identifies healthcare corruption types and mechanisms in China, suggesting governance improvements.
Objective This study aimed to construct a reproducible sample of judicially visible healthcare corruption in China, identify its typologies, risk nodes, actor structures, and elucidate the institutional mechanisms underlying representative cases. Methods An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used. Criminal judgments with dates from 1 September 2019 to 31 December 2025 were retrieved from China Judgments Online in January 2026 and screened, yielding 573 judgments involving 787 defendants. Phase 1 used structured coding for descriptive analysis, while phase 2 used embedded multiple-case analysis of purposively selected, information-rich cases to explain key institutional mechanisms. Results Cases clustered into three main categories, namely pharmaceutical/clinical commercial bribery (267, 46.60%), embezzlement of in-hospital funds (137, 23.91%), and medical insurance fund fraud (99, 17.28%). Risk points concentrated on procurement (335 cases), medical insurance auditing/payment (136 cases), and in-hospital finance/asset management (122 cases). Among defendants sentenced to imprisonment ( n = 710), the median principal penalty was 36 months, probation was 42.90%, fines was 91.70%, and recovery/disgorgement/forfeiture was 84.81%. Cross-case analysis revealed that corruption hinged on the coupling of gatekeeping authority, supplier inducement, professional discretion, and control over payment or accounting interfaces. Conclusion Publicly available criminal judgments provide a reproducible risk map of judicially visible healthcare corruption in China. Findings support node-oriented governance prioritizing procurement transparency, payment-side auditing, and high-risk internal posts. These data should be interpreted as legally filtered governance evidence rather than as direct estimates of underlying corruption incidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: