Doctors Sue Over Medicine Price Display Mandate
Eight Medical Groups Challenge Government Order
Seven medical and dental associations, alongside an individual general practitioner, have launched a legal challenge against the government’s mandated medicine price display policy, seeking to quash the recent regulation.
Legal Challenge Filed in High Court
The Association of Private Practitioners, Sabah, the Malaysian Medical Association, and six other prominent medical and dental bodies, along with Dr. Saifulbahri Ahmad, filed a judicial review application last Thursday. They are challenging the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025, which became effective on May 1.
Challenging the Minister’s Authority
The applicants argue that the order exceeds the domestic trade and cost of living minister’s authority. Their statement of claim asserts that the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act (PCAPA) 2011 cannot be applied to substances administered by registered medical practitioners during treatment, as regulated by the Poisons Act 1952.
“The Impugned Order was made in excess of the 1st Respondent’s power as Section 10 of the PCAPA 2011 cannot apply to poisons administered by registered medical practitioners in the course of treatment authorised under Section 19 of the Poisons Act 1952.”
— Applicants’ Statement of Claim
The core of their argument rests on the interpretation of “goods or services” under PCAPA. The applicants contend that medical and dental clinics are not supplying goods or services in the manner envisaged by the act, but rather providing professional treatment.
Existing Regulations Already Cover Price Transparency
Applicants highlighted that pharmaceutical labelling and drug container requirements are already governed by existing regulations under the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act (PHFSA) 1998. These regulations, they argue, already ensure patient safety and information provision.
Furthermore, they pointed out that the PHFSA mandates that private facilities provide patients with itemised billing for the entire treatment process, allowing for informed decisions.
Disproportionate Impact on Small Clinics Cited
The lawsuit also raises concerns about the disproportionate impact on smaller general practitioner and specialist clinics. These practices, it is argued, will face unfair competition from larger chain pharmacies that can offer lower prices due to economies of scale and different procurement structures.
This competition, they claim, is based solely on drug price rather than the comprehensive care provided by medical professionals.
Allegations of Insufficient Consultation
The applicants accuse the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister, Armizan Mohd Ali, of failing to engage in meaningful consultation with stakeholders before implementing the order. They also claim he did not sufficiently confer with the Health Minister, Dzulkefly Ahmad, to grasp the implications for medical practitioners.
A statistic from a 2023 report indicated that administrative costs, including compliance and staffing, can account for as much as 30% of a small business’s operating expenses in some sectors, highlighting the potential burden of new mandates (Enterprise News 2023).
Call for Stay of Enforcement
The legal challenge seeks not only to nullify the drug price display order but also to halt its enforcement while the judicial review is pending. The current grace period for compliance is set to expire on July 31.
The applicants emphasize that if prosecutions proceed and the order is later overturned, the costs and damages incurred would be irreversible, arguing there is no immediate urgency to enforce the mandate.