Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Cancer Drug Pricing
The Supreme Court of India has voiced its strong concerns regarding the substantial price disparity between the Price to Retailer (PTR) and Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of essential cancer medications. The court characterized the situation as a blatant exploitation of vulnerable patients by pharmaceutical companies and retailers. This observation was made during the hearing of the case Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, presided over by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Justice Mehta expressed shock at the significant markup of life-saving drugs, stating, “There are essential medicines for cancer for which MRP is ₹27,000 and PTR is ₹2,700. That is absolute rampage and carnage and broad daylight dacoity with the patients.” The court emphasized the need for regulatory intervention, highlighting the silence of authorities in addressing the issue.
Impact on Public Healthcare Schemes
The court further highlighted the financial ramifications of inflated drug prices on public healthcare schemes like Ayushman Bharat. It noted that when such overpriced medicines are reimbursed under government schemes, it is ultimately the taxpayers who bear the cost. “There is a clear-cut case of fraud,” the court remarked, pointing out the systemic issues with current pricing structures.
Petition for Regulatory Reforms
The petition, brought forth by Kishan Chand Jain, seeks mandatory prescriptions of generic drugs, initial price controls on non-scheduled medicines, and retail price caps on medical devices. Jain argued that under the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) of 2013, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) regulates only about 1,000 scheduled drugs, leaving a vast majority of medicines without price controls.
Illustrating the issue with an example, Justice Mehta noted that a strip of Rosuvas, a cholesterol-lowering drug not under DPCO’s scheduled drugs, costs significantly more than its combination counterpart, which falls under controlled pricing.
Discussion on Generic Medicines
The Bench suggested that if all medicines were included under a comprehensive price-fixation policy, the need for a separate system of mandatory generic prescriptions might be eliminated. “Everything will be at par,” the court observed.
Response from Pharmaceutical Representatives
Representing the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the exorbitant margins are not retained by pharmaceutical companies but occur at the retail and hospital levels. He urged the court to consider the prices at which drugs are sold to stockists and retailers.
Government’s Stand
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, speaking on behalf of the Union government, assured the court of its commitment to making medicines affordable and accessible. He cited initiatives like the Jan Aushadhi Kendra, although the petitioner questioned its reach, noting its limited share in the overall pharmaceutical market.
More Read
The court has adjourned the proceedings, scheduling further hearings for September 29.
