The Supreme Court recently addressed concerns about overpriced medicines in hospital-linked pharmacies, directing all State Governments to consider the issue and make policy decisions as they see fit. The Court on Tuesday asked the government bodies to devise necessary plans for preventing such exploitation done by private medical institutions.
The unfair pricing of medicines, implants and medical equipment in pharmacies linked to private hospitals has been a pressing issue over the past few years. The patients visiting such hospitals are forced to purchase the medicinal requirements in pharmacies which are run or recommended by the hospital authorities. Moreover, the essential medicines and medical devices are allegedly priced at rates higher than notified market rates in such institutions.
The Supreme Court has called on the state governments to introduce a policy to ensure that hospitals do not compel patients to purchase needful medical commodities from associated pharmaceutical outlets at inflated rates, as compared to notified market prices. However, the Court cautioned the authorities from taking a hard line while formulating guidelines concerning the issue, which might adversely affect private investment in the healthcare sector.
In response to the Public Interest Litigation (PLI), against the practice of private hospitals compelling patients to buy medicines from the in-house stores, filed by Siddharth Dalmia, the two-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh observed that governments must be sensitised to the issue of unreasonable charges and financial exploitation in the private healthcare sector. In the plea submitted to the SC, Dalmia argued that this unfair practice by private health sector amounts to blackmail, depriving patients of their right to fair pricing. The petitioner further cited an instance of exploitation he experienced when a relative underwent extensive treatment at a private hospital.
While acknowledging the problem, the Supreme Court questioned how such practices could be effectively regulated and enforced without unintended consequences. It further noted that it is the duty of states to ensure proper medical care, and alleged that the Union and states had not been able to deliver the requisite medical care and, therefore, had “facilitated and promoted private entities”.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Jithin Paul/MSM)