[Reporter's view]Double regulation of penalties for rebates

Rebates in the Pharmaceutical Industry's trick to `ship to pharmacies' has been repeated for decades.

 

Some of them are established as practice and are taken for granted.

 

During the two-week grace period given by the MFDS prior to the suspension of sale, pharmaceutical companies are actually making total sales by releasing drugs that cannot be sold for three months (6 months of second detection) to pharmacies.

 

The grace period given to alleviate discomfort for patients taking medication is rather abused as a intensive promotion period for disposal items of Rebates in the Pharmaceutical Industry.

 

Moreover, the inconvenience of pharmacists who have to pre-order stocks in order to dispense drugs that will be temporarily sold out due to the suspension of sales is also aggravated.

 

The 21st National Assembly Health and Welfare Committee urged the MFDS to realize regulations as a result of eradicating disease.

 

Kang Seon-woo, a member of Democratic Party of Korea focused on current regulations that do not directly punish pharmaceutical companies which have committed illegal administrative dispositions for rebates.

 

The target of the disposition is pharmaceutical companies, but as they regulate medicines, the damage is transferred to patients who take medicine for disease treatment and to pharmacies in charge of dispensing.

 

The sales of eight pharmaceutical companies, which were caught in rebates last year, sold items for sale within the two-week grace period was four times that of the previous month (the average sales growth rate of eight companies increased by 396%).

 

The current regulation is a trickery that advances the timing of drugs to be sold during the disposal period within the grace period, and the effectiveness of suspension of sale is extremely low.

 

Pharmacists are very embarrassed when they face a patient who gives out a prescription including out-of-stock drugs.

 

In preparation for this, if a pharmacy pre-orders inventory as a temporary action, the nature of the ban on rebates is completely lost.

 

Therefore, pharmacists are saying that the suspension of sales of rebate drugs should be replaced with punitive penalties imposed on pharmaceutical companies, or the prescription itself should be prevented by suspension of benefits.

 

Earlier at the time of the parliamentary inspection, Lee Eui-kyung, Director of the MFDS, was reluctant to respond to the proposal that it was necessary to replace the suspension of sales with a fine.

 

As the Health Insurance Act regulates lowering the rebate drug price and the Fair Trade Act also imposes penalties on rebate pharmaceutical companies, she is concerned that the collection of additional penalties under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act may act as a double regulation.

 

However, it was not appropriate as an answer to the improvement in the sale of illegal rebate drugs.

 

In the case of illegal rebate violations prohibited by the current pharmacist law, the administrative disposition is 3 months suspension of sales at the first detection, 6 months suspension of sales at the second detection, and cancellation of the license for the third time.

 

The fact that pharmacies and pharmacies and wholesalers of rebate items can be sold out without economic damage until the second detection, when the sale is suspended for six months, can trigger an unfair result of allowing two rebates.

 

The eradication of illegal rebates is an obligation that the MFDS must take the lead.

 

It is also the duty of the MFDS to make invalid sales suspensions ineffective by collecting a penalty surcharge.

 

If the Health Insurance Act's drug price cut and the Fair Trade Act penalty are not in place of the suspension of rebate sales, shouldn't the imposition of the substitute penalty for the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act be viewed as a legitimate and legitimate punishment rather than an overlapping or excessive regulation?