Full Breakdown
Supreme Court probes steep markup on cancer drugs
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta) questioned a ten-fold increase in the price of essential cancer medicines—citing a drug with a Maximum Retail Price of INR27,000 while the price to retailer was INR2,700. The court asked why a uniform 16 % margin is not applied to all medicines and scheduled a further hearing for October 12.
Background & Context
Petitions filed by advocate Kishan Chand Jain and Dr Sanjay Kulshresthra sought a cap on rising drug costs, both essential and non-essential, under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order 2013. The existing framework permits a 16 % retailer margin only for scheduled medicines; many oncology drugs are non-scheduled, allowing higher MRPs. The issue is linked to broader concerns about the affordability of cancer treatment and the burden on taxpayers when patients receive care under government reimbursement schemes.
Data & Statistics
- A cancer drug supplied to retailers for INR2,700 was listed with an MRP of INR27,000, a ten-times increase.
- A basic statin costs INR40; the same statin combined with aspirin costs INR70, illustrating markup patterns in common medicines.
- Petitioners submitted that roughly 82 % of medicines fall outside the scheduled category under the 2013 order, limiting the applicability of the 16 % margin.
Official Statements & Responses
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that pharmaceutical manufacturers are not the primary beneficiaries of the markup and that he would meet with officials to discuss the matter, requesting two weeks for the discussion.
- Justice Sandeep Mehta warned that if a “humane” pharmacist offers the drug at the lower price, patients might doubt its authenticity, and asked who profits from the INR24,300 price gap.
- The court observed that the taxpayer ultimately bears the cost when patients receive treatment under government schemes, emphasizing the impact on the “common man.”
Criticism & Opposition
The bench criticized corporate hospitals for forcing patients to purchase medicines exclusively from in-house pharmacies, describing them as “industries, not a service” and highlighting the resulting financial strain on patients.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
No source provided a detailed breakdown of how the markup is distributed among hospitals, distributors, or other intermediaries, leaving the exact beneficiaries of the price gap unidentified.
What’s Next
The case is listed for a further hearing on October 12, when the Centre is expected to submit its response to the court’s queries about uniform pricing margins and the allocation of the markup surplus.