DA Editorial Team
A cancer diagnosis brings fear enough. For many families it also brings a second shock at the pharmacy counter. The Supreme Court has recently turned its attention to this problem, and its observations deserve to be heard widely.
On 22 September, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was told of a medicine with a maximum retail price of Rs 27,000 that was supplied to retailers for Rs 2,700. At a later hearing, reported on 30 September, the bench noted a cancer drug supplied to retailers at Rs 3,520 that reached patients at Rs 22,427. The judges used strong language and asked why a uniform cap should not limit the retail price to 16 per cent above the price to the retailer. They also asked why essential and non-essential medicines are treated differently under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, and raised concerns about patients being required to buy medicines from in-house hospital pharmacies. The Solicitor General told the court that the Centre would look for a fair solution that balances equities, and the matter was listed for 12 October.
The government has also moved. According to reports citing official sources, it plans to cap trade margins at 30 per cent of MRP for non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs, covering branded and generic, domestic and imported, patented and non-patented products. About 110 medicines, including 35 patented ones, are expected to become cheaper, and the decision is expected later this month. Officials describe the aim as preventing mis-selling.
Both these steps are welcome, and the debate that follows should be fair to everyone. Patients and families need relief. Manufacturers, distributors and chemists, for their part, are entitled to a clear and predictable framework, and a margin cap should not discourage the supply of medicines in smaller towns and remote areas, including in our own region.
Three things would help. The rules, once decided, should be published clearly so that buyers can check what they are being charged. Enforcement must be real, with a simple way for patients to complain. And the question of costs in hospitals should be examined with the same care as costs in shops.
Health is a matter where affordability and availability must travel together. If the court, the Centre and the industry can reach a balanced outcome, a family facing cancer may at least be spared the shock of the bill.