The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 29) questioned the Centre over the steep prices of life-saving medicines, particularly cancer drugs, as it resumed
hearing a matter concerning the substantial difference between the price to retailer (PTR) and the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines. The SC bench pointed to the absence of adequate price-control mechanisms and sought to know why certain medicines remain outside the scope of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO). During the hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta highlighted the significant markups on cancer medicines, citing an example in which a drug supplied to retailers for approximately Rs 3,000 was being sold at an MRP of Rs 27,000. "27000 MRP of a cancer drug, price to retailer is around 3000. Just see the drastic difference," Justice Mehta stated. The Bench also questioned the government over the absence of a uniform criteria of 16 percent. The court had previously flagged a similar instance involving a cancer medicine priced at Rs 2,700 but sold for Rs 27,000, raising questions about the financial burden imposed on patients requiring life-saving treatment. During Tuesday's hearing, Justice Mehta questioned the rationale behind treating essential and non-essential medicines differently under the existing drug pricing framework. "Why a distinction between essential and non essential under DPCO?" he asked. The bench also raised concerns about corporate hospitals requiring patients to purchase medicines from their in-house pharmacies, potentially leaving patients with little choice over where to buy their prescribed drugs. "Corporate hospitals insist on purchasing from in house pharmacies. Who pays if the patient is taking treatment under some government scheme? The taxpayer," the bench observed. The court noted that inflated medicine prices could also place a financial burden on public funds when patients receive treatment under government-sponsored healthcare schemes. Questioning the Centre as to why a uniform pricing mechanism could not be introduced to prevent excessive markups on medicines and medical devices, the bench asked, "Why not a uniform criteria of 16% and nothing beyond that? Every medical device, every medicine is covered under the Essential Commodities Act. If it is an essential item can it be left out of the DPCO?" During the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had flagged the substantial gap between the price at which medicines are procured by retailers and the amount printed on the packaging. The court had described such pricing in strong terms, calling it "broad daylight dacoity", and questioned the authorities over who was responsible for regulating medicine prices and why such disparities had not been adequately addressed.
