Friday, November 10, 2023

Submission by the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) on the Implementation of Mandatory Sale Price Display for Medicines (7 Nov 2023)

Submission by the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) on the Implementation of Mandatory Sale Price Display for Medicines

For a long time, CAP and many other consumer groups have been calling for the mandatory display of the selling price of medicines sold in all healthcare facilities. 

We are pleased that this policy will finally be implemented, as it has been extremely unfair to consumers and patients when certain types of healthcare facilities, such as private clinics and hospitals, have been allowed to practise non-upfront price disclosure to consumers. 

The Medicines Price Monitoring Survey in Malaysia 2017 and 2020 have repeatedly found that medicines sold in private clinics and hospitals are among the most expensive. We believe that there is a causal link between the current practice of non-upfront price disclosure and high mark up. In 2020, the median markup rate for originator and generic drugs in private hospitals with inpatient facilities was 117.1% and 233.5%, respectively, while in private clinics it was 45.8% and 142.3%, respectively.

We believe that the market can only work well for society if there is price competition, comprehensive and accurate information, adequate and timely supply (of medicines) and consumers (patients) can make informed choices. This is not the case in the current pricing situation in private clinics and hospitals.

We are puzzled as to what makes medicines so special that for such a long time these manufactured goods have been given special treatment for retailers not to display prices, while we do not know of any other manufactured goods that have 'enjoyed' such a similar status. At a time when even most services in the commercial world display prices, we do not understand why private clinics and hospitals cannot do the same. 

Technically, it is certainly no excuse that they cannot produce a comprehensive list of medicines for price display, even digital ones would do. In addition the prices of their other non-medical products and services have not even been included in any price regulation policy discussion. Why is it not a technical problem? Because the APHM and MMA claim that their members have long practised detailed billing or are able to provide a price breakdown on request for a detailed receipt. This shows that all the price information is already in the system, so there is no reason for APHM and MMA to not display the prices up front? 

Detailed billing is only what consumers expect, it is not the full picture of price transparency. For example, if price display is not mandatory, would a consumer be willing to go into a restaurant without the price of the food being displayed and only get the detailed bill later when you pay? Pricing is the first fundamental step in consumer protection, both sides have to agree on a price BEFORE the transaction takes place, before it can be called fair.

No one would call a price list in a restaurant menu a form of advertising, it goes against the basic understanding of advertising. The concern of some health professionals expressed in the consultation on 2 November has no basis or logic .

In most cases, the practice of not displaying prices would conceal profiteering conduct , as government agencies and consumers can only prove profiteering if previous prices and dates are known. As a consumer group CAP strongly supports that medicines should not be treated differently from other market products when it comes to price display and transparency.

During the 2 November consultation, a representative of a private hospital claimed that there are situations, for example in an emergency, where only the in-patients know which medicines are used to treat them, price labelling at the bedside will make no difference. This is a very misleading argument that ignores many other scenarios where patients do have time to plan and decide where to go for treatment and where to buy medicines. 

Some argue that medicines are only one part of the total cost of healthcare, so why focus on that? We urge them to look at cancer medicines in particular, where the patients concerned face financial catastrophe, such medicines are not 'only a part' of the total cost of treatment.

Also, with the price display mechanism in place, effective and convenient price comparison is possible, and this would put the onus on retailers not to set an exorbitant price (and hope that patients will foot the bill afterwards) and let the market moderate the range and let consumers make an informed decision with the available price information. 

Community pharmacies are unhappy with the practice of price dumping of medical products by the large chain pharmacies, and we believe that with the mandatory price display mechanism, this kind of market behaviour would be easily exposed and tantamount to anti-competitive practices, and would be subject to investigation by the Malaysian Competition Commission. Consumers may choose convenience and familiarity over a small difference in the price of medicines, similar to other commercial products sold by the local community. 

The mandatory price display mechanism and policy is truly long overdue but a fundamental element for fair market competition and consumer protection. We firmly believe that this policy is non-negotiable and will definitely be an effective market intervention to moderate excessive profits and predatory pricing by private clinics and hospitals. 

This policy is one of the most basic and achievable to meet the expectation of the National Medicines Policy (DUNAS) where it explicitly states that there is a need for a medicine pricing mechanism across the public and private sectors to ensure reasonable and affordable pricing, price transparency and that the cost of medicines will not be the barrier to access to medicines for the rakyat.

Statement made in a public consultation session on the Medicine Price Display mechanism (2 Nov 2023)

Statement by Dr. Lim Chee Han, Consumers Association of Penang and Third World Network

2 Nov 2023

Sesi Libat Urus Bersama Pihak Fasiliti Kesihatan Swasta, Farmasi Komuniti, Penyedia Insurans dan Pengguna Tahun 2023

Selamat pagi saya ucapkan kepada pengerusi majlis KSU YBhg. Dato’ Seri Ir. Dr. Zaini bin Ujang dan pembentang Puan Fatkhiah binti Haji Khalil Timbalan Pengarah Bahagian Amalan dan Perkembangan Farmasi. 

Hari ini saya mewakili persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang (Consumers Association of Penang) dan Third World Network untuk memberi pandangan mengenai cadangan mekanisme sebentar tadi. Memorandum bertulis saya akan dihantarkan kepada KKM nanti dengan maklumat terperinci dan data terkini. Saya seorang penyelidik dasar polisi yang telah lama mengambil berat terhadap harga ubatan, saya pun melibatkan diri dalam gabungan People’s Health Forum dan persatuan pesakit barah (Together Against Cancer). Dengan izin, saya akan teruskan ucapan saya dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the MOH for the genuine and persistent effort to consult and engage with multi-stakeholders from the very beginning of the policy proposal on the Medicines Price Regulation Mechanism, all the way back to 2019. 

It is probably one of the best consultation processes our organisations have seen - the MOH has genuinely practised inclusivity, including the voices not only of the manufacturers and service providers who have the intention to 'sell' their products, but also of the end users, consumer groups and patient groups who have to pay for these products in order to survive or live a better quality of life. 

In every stakeholder engagement, I see the MOH leading the way in rationality and evidence-based approach. They were transparent in  the first cost-benefit analysis CBA 1.0 study conducted by the Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC). The study has many limitations, and MPC and MOH acknowledged the data gaps due to the industry's refusal to be transparent about prices. But the study itself at least had a credible analysis. 

However, the second CBA was funded, sponsored and essentially directed by PhAMA, with the technical committee even co-chaired by a senior member of PhAMA itself, showing a blatant conflict of interest, so it is not surprising to see the big negative results of the study - Imagine the tobacco and vape industry giving advice and technical guidance on smoking policy, how good can the policy be for public health and public interest, especially the affected groups and community? 

It is worth noting that the second industry-led CBA Steering Committee was chaired by MITI, not MOH. To date, there has been no official acknowledgement and announcement of who is the so-called independent third party consultant behind the second CBA and the full study report is not publicly available. There is nothing more ridiculous than the fact that the study claimed to have consulted patient groups, but we later found out that the patients they interviewed were from industry’s own patient assistance programme. How can these patients who benefit from PhAMA reflect the majority of patients out there? 

There are many flaws that we found in the second study, which we had submitted in a detailed response. However, the industry and vested interests continue to use the results of this CBA study to pressure the government to withhold or withdraw this Medicines price regulation mechanism policy.

On behalf of the public interest and patient groups I must express my strong disappointment at the compromise and delayed implementation of the MOH’s  policy due to industry pressure. Many lives have been lost, I personally also know a few cases, that many have died because they were unable to afford the most effective cancer medicines, and the fact that many thousands are impoverished by the unreasonably high price of medicines due to the monopolistic market prices set by patent holders and then exorbitant mark-ups by service providers and retailers. 

We are very disappointed that  the policy has been compromised at the expense of the very community, the patients, that the industry claims to be benefiting. Shame on the industry for their uncompetitive and unfair market practices and their unchecked excessive profits, which are causing suffering to many patients. 

The MOH’s medicines price regulation policy actually starts modestly , and it is not the conventional type of price control, but a control mechanism on the maximum markup for the single-source products, up to 30% markup allowance, depending on the initial price of the product. These products represent only a small segment of the total pharmaceutical market, and it is not as if retailers and the supply chain cannot make profits from the mark-up. It is the excessive mark-up profits that the government and the patient groups concerned want to curb and control. 

I would like to point out that the 12th Malaysia Plan, Strategy B2, "Ensuring Financial Sustainability for Healthcare" explicitly states: "A price control mechanism for medicines will be introduced to protect consumers from unfair pricing" (page 4-22). The government is clearly aware of the problem and is trying to address the issue of drug prices. This must be done in the public interest; the government has a duty to protect the most vulnerable and affected community, not to help industry players maintain their excessive or even obscene profits at the expense of patients.

Ideally, a truly competitive market would help solve the problem of availability and affordability of life-saving and life-enhancing products. The 2017 MyCC Market Review report on the pharmaceutical sector clearly shows that this sector is not a free and truly competitive market due to patent laws and flawed practices in granting some patents, which give the patent holders a monopoly over the products for a long period of time. Price regulation is therefore an essential countermeasure to protect the interests of consumers and patients. 

The industry must first comply with the price transparency mechanism presented today. The government cannot compromise further on this. We urge the government to go back to the original modest proposal of controlling the mark-up on single-source products. Even this may not be enough for many patients, but it is the bare minimum that our patient and consumer groups would expect from this medicines pricing policy.

Thank you very much.


Consider This: Social Health Insurance — Weighing the Options (9 Nov 2023)

Description from Astro Awani:

The government is exploring a new healthcare financing model, shifting away from the present tax-based financing and potentially into a social health insurance scheme. Is this the best option for Malaysia to sustainably fund our healthcare sector? On this episode of #ConsiderThis Melisa Idris speaks to Special Advisor to the Minister of Health, Dr Kelvin Yii, and Dr Lim Chee Han from the Third World Network.



藥品強制展示標價政策符合大眾利益

 

強制價格展示機制和政策確實已遲來,但卻是市場公平競爭和消費者保護的基本要素。我堅信,這項政策不容討價還價,必將有效地管制市場的反競爭行為,抑制私人診所和醫院的暴利和掠奪性定價。醫藥行業必須首先接受和遵守政府這次提出的藥品強制標價機制。在這一點上,政府不能再妥協了。我敦促政府回到最初的政策倡議,即控制單一來源(市場壟斷)藥品的加價。即使這對許多患者來說或許也是不太足夠,但這已是患者和消費者團體對藥品定價政策的最低期望。


【文/林志翰】

不曉得你會否曾有困惑、不滿或不解,為何在私人診所和醫院,藥品價錢通常要等到結單的時候才知道,又或者需要特別先洽詢?為何私人醫療機構業者不能如藥劑店或其他商品和服務項目業者展示標價,這樣的安排和設計合理嗎?

作者代表消費人協會和癌癥病患協會日前出席政府針對實施藥品強制展示標價政策的公開咨詢會,在場聽到許多業者和協會的強烈反對,而有所感慨。長期以來,許多其他消費者團體一直呼籲所有醫療設施必須強制展示藥品售價。這項政策終於得以實施是一個大好消息,因為私人診所和醫院一直被默許不向消費者公開價格,這對消費者和病患來說是極不公平的。

馬來西亞二〇一七年和二〇二〇年藥品價格監測調查報告多次發現,私人診所和醫院出售的藥品是最昂貴的。我認為,目前不預告價格的做法與高加價(mark up)之間存在因果關係。在二〇二〇年,在設有住院設施的私人醫院,原廠藥和仿製藥的加價率中位數(median)分別為 117.1%和 233.5%,而私人診所則分別為 45.8%和 142.3%。

消費者團體一般認為,只有在價格競爭、信息全面且準確、(藥品)供應充足與及時、消費者(病患)能夠做出知情選擇的情況下,市場才能為社會發揮良好作用。而目前私人診所和醫院的藥品定價情況並非如此。

藥物並無特殊地位

我感到困惑的是,藥品為何如此特殊,以至於長期以來,這些藥品一直享有零售商不需展示價格的特殊待遇。而我卻不知有任何其他製成品「享有」類似的地位。當市場上大多數服務項目都展示價格的時候,我不明白為何私人診所和醫院不能這樣做。

技術上而言,私人醫療業者說不能提供一份全面的藥品價格清單,即使是數碼清單也不行,這肯定是個借口。為何說這非關技術問題?因為大馬私人醫院協會(APHM) 和大馬醫藥協會(MMA)聲稱其會員長期以來一直提供詳細賬單,或者能夠在病人要求下領取詳細收據時提供價格明細。這表示所有價格資料已在系統內,APHM 和 MMA 沒有理由不能預先展示價錢?

詳細賬單只是消費者的一般正常期望,這並不是價格透明(price transparency)全貌的依據。舉例說,若不強制要求展示價格,那麽消費者是否願意進入一家不展示菜價的餐館,而在付款時才拿到詳細賬單呢?定價是消費者權益保護的第一步,買賣雙方必須在交易前就貨品或服務價格達成一致協議,才能稱得上公平。

沒有人會把餐館菜單上的價格表稱為廣告,這樣的說法違背了一般人對廣告的基本理解。一些私人醫療業者在公開咨詢會中表達這政策會違反醫藥廣告規定的擔憂是沒有道理和邏輯的。

很多時候,不展示價格的做法會掩蓋牟取暴利的行為,因為只有在知道過去的價格,並且了解資料來源日期的情況下比較,政府機構和消費者才能舉報和證明該商家有牟取暴利的行為。作為一個消費者團體代表,我強烈支持在價格展示和透明度方面,不應將藥品與其他產品區別對待。

在同場的公開咨詢會上,一家私人醫院代表聲稱,在某些情況下,例如在急診中,病人入院時才知道治療他們的藥物。因此,在床邊貼上價格標簽也不會有任何區別。這個說法非常誤導人,因為該代表忽略了許多其他情況下,病人確實有時間規劃和決定去哪裡治療和去哪裡買藥品。如此,病人才能貨比三家,不會對不正確的選擇,造成重大的財務後果。

讓市場調節價格幅度

有些業者認為,藥品只是治療總成本的一部分,為何要把重點放在藥品呢?我敦促他們特別關註癌癥藥物。癌癥患者往往因購買有效藥物而面臨財政災難,這些藥物並不「只是」總治療費用的一部分。

同時,有了價格展示機制,消費者和病人就可以有效和方便地查詢和比較價格,這將使藥品零售商有責任不再制定過高的價格,並且希望病人能事後買單。而這將讓市場來調節價格幅度,並讓消費者根據現有的價格信息做出明智的決定。

社區藥店對大型連鎖藥店的醫藥產品價格傾銷行為感到不滿。我相信,在強制價格展示機制下,這種市場行為很容易被揭露,等同於反競爭行為,會受到馬來西亞競爭委員會的調查和制裁。其實,消費者更可能會選擇方便和熟悉的當地社區小藥房,而不會因為價格上的小差異而棄之遠去。這情況與當地社區銷售的其他商業產品類似。

私人醫療業者和藥廠等既得利益集團持續性向政府施壓,要求暫停或撤銷藥品價格監管機制政策,而自從二〇一九年衛生部的政策因這些利益集團的壓力而一再延遲、讓步和妥協。對此,我深感失望。許多生命已經逝去,我個人也認識一些已逝世的病患例子。許多人因為買不起最有效的癌癥藥物而死亡,還有成千上萬的人因為專利持有者制定的壟斷性市場價格以及供應商和零售商的高昂加價,而導致不合理的高藥價而陷入貧困。

我感到最不忿的是,這些業者聲稱他們在乎病患群體要讓後者受益。但最後到頭來患者的利益卻受到損害和不公平對待。缺乏競爭力和不公平的市場行為以及不受約束的暴利給許多患者帶來了痛苦,這些業者的行為是可恥的。

強制價格展示機制和政策確實已遲來,但卻是市場公平競爭和消費者保護的基本要素。我堅信,這項政策不容討價還價,必將有效地管制市場的反競爭行為,抑制私人診所和醫院的暴利和掠奪性定價。

這項政策是國家藥品政策(DUNAS)裡的最基本和可實現的政策之一。國家藥品政策明確指出,有必要在公共和私營領域建立藥品定價機制,以確保合理和負擔得起的定價、價格透明度以及藥品成本不會成為人民得到治療的障礙。

醫藥行業必須首先接受和遵守政府這次提出的藥品強制標價機制。在這一點上,政府不能再妥協了。我敦促政府回到最初的政策倡議,即控制單一來源(市場壟斷)藥品的加價。即使這對許多患者來說或許也是不太足夠,但這已是患者和消費者團體對藥品定價政策的最低期望。

原文鏈接:https://contemporary-review.com.my/2023/11/07/1-554/