|
SKCDA urges govt to immediately address the issue of anomalies in DPCO, 2013
|
|
Nandita Vijayasimha, Bengaluru
November 22 , 2023
|
|
|
The Suvarna Karnataka Chemists and Distributors Association (SKCDA) has urged the Department of Pharmaceuticals to immediately address the issue of anomalies in the Drugs (Price Control) Order (DPCO), 2013.
Pointing out the anomalies in the DPCO, 2013 SKCDA said that some of these are Maximum Retail Price: [2(r)] which reads like an incomplete sentence. Para 2(u): New drugs, its definition differs from the one used in para 32 (iii) explanation. SKCDA is of the view that it should be one and the same.
In a communication to the Union government, Ashokswamy Heroor, vice-president & chairman legal cell, SKCDA said that even though the prices of a large number of essential drugs have been fixed, the method of calculating the ceiling prices in para 4 and 6 are unscientific.
On the face of it, it appears that it is made to help manufacturers and not the consumers. The manufacturers are capable of fixing high prices, based on the aggregate of the existing inflated prices. The prices fixed by this method are not fair. This process is ineffective to prevent the companies that profit from this price fixation, he said.
Noting that the method of calculation in para 7 of the DPCO 1995 was quite scientific, Heroor said that the same method has to be followed in this order also. This fact is reflected in the market by the flooding of ‘free goods’ and ‘bonus offers’. For example, Amitax 500 injection (amikacin sulphate injection) IP by Alkem Ulticare is 1+1 free. Cardiforce injection, dobutamin 250 by Torrent Pharmaceuticals is 7+8 free. Thrombiflo 60 injection, enoxaparin sodium by Torrent Pharmaceuticals is 1+1 free, said Heroor.
The possibility of extending offers of spurious drugs too cannot be ruled out. In such a case, the government is also bound to lose considerable tax revenue. It is high time the bonus offer is stopped. We strongly urge to include a para in the new DPCO, to ban this practice. Alternately the profit margin may be increased to 25% to the retailers and 15% to the wholesalers, to discourage the unhealthy bonus offer/free goods system, he said. .
Para [2(zd)], the definition of wholesaler needs revision and restrict its meaning as a ‘seller who sells only to a retailer’. Also ‘Selling to hospital, dispensary, medical or educational or research institution or any other agency’ should be deleted from the definition, he said.
Provision may be made to fix the bulk drug prices, as it has direct effect on the retail prices. Under Para 7, the retailers margin must be increased to 25% and wholesalers margin to 15% in order to curb free goods offer. At the same time, similar profit margin must be provided for non-scheduled formulations also, by incorporating a separate paragraph, 7A.
Referring to the Offence Clause, Para No 14, Heroor said that manufacturers have been permitted to sell ‘scheduled formulations’. This para permits the manufacturer to sell at the MRP to the wholesaler and there will be no profit margin. Hence the very intention of the order is nullified, he said.
Further, Heroor also delved into issues of recovery of dues, control of sale prices, revision of prices, selling medicines in loose quantity, need for price lists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOPICS
|
That foods might provide therapeutic benefits is clearly not a new concept. ...
|
|
|
|
|