KUALA LUMPUR, April 29 — The Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association (MPDPA) has opposed mandatory drug price display in dental clinics, warning it could mislead patients about the nature of dental care and expose practitioners to legal risks.
In a statement yesterday, MPDPA said that while it appreciates the need for consumer protection, it is “important to distinguish health care providers from retail businesses.”
“Dental clinics are treatment centres, not shops,” MPDPA said. “Medications are tools for therapy and not items for public retail display,” it added, warning that applying retail-based regulations to dental professionals undermines their ability to provide timely and ethical patient care.
The group expressed support for the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) and other health care associations in opposing the implementation of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 (Act 723) on private health care facilities.
“Our primary mission is to provide clinical treatment, patient care, and promote oral health and not to operate as pharmaceutical retailers,” MPDPA said. “The medicines/ drugs stocked in dental clinics — such as local anaesthetics, antibiotics, analgesics, and antiseptics — are kept strictly for clinical use in-patient treatment and not for commercial sale to the public.”
Neither the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN) nor the Ministry of Health (MOH) have announced the gazettement of the drug price display order under Act 723, ahead of the target implementation date on May 1.
A check of the Attorney-General’s Chambers federal legislation portal shows no sign of the order. The most recent order related to Act 723, published last Monday and coming into operation on Thursday, relates to the setting of a maximum retail price for 1kg of pure palm cooking oil.
MPDPA said enforcing rigid regulations related to drug display, pricing control, and profit margins under Act 723 does not reflect the true function of dental clinics.
“Displaying a ‘list of drugs’ can wrongly imply that drugs are available for public purchase, leading to confusion and legal complications,” it said.
The association also raised concerns that such requirements could breach clinical confidentiality. “Treatment (including choice of drug) is based on a dentist’s professional judgment, tailored to each patient’s specific diagnosis and health needs,” MPDPA stated.
“Displaying a list could mislead patients into thinking they can choose medications themselves, undermining proper clinical decision-making.”
MPDPA cautioned that patients might misunderstand the availability or purpose of certain drugs, leading to inappropriate demands — including for medications that are risky or legally restricted — potentially exposing clinics to medico-legal liability.
“Health care should focus on treatment outcomes, not marketing or price shopping for drugs,” MPDPA stressed. “Medical and dental care are complex, patient-specific services — not standardised commodities.”
The association noted that private health care facilities are already regulated under the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (PHFSA), which it said is more appropriate for the professional health care context.
Imposing overlapping or unsuitable legislation, MPDPA warned, may cause confusion, disrupt clinical practice, and ultimately affect patient care.
The group added that dental clinics are already struggling under “illogical and irrational layers of regulation” that micromanage clinical work and impose unsustainable costs.
“When pushed to the limit, clinics may have no choice but to pass down these costs to patients — a move that clearly contradicts our commitment to affordable health care and the broader public health goals outlined by the MOH,” it said.
MPDPA urged policymakers to ensure that patient care remains the central concern of health care regulations.
“Enforcing commercial laws on dental clinics threatens the affordability and accessibility of treatment for the public. We urge policymakers to apply regulations thoughtfully and to distinguish between health care services and retail operations to safeguard the sustainability of patient care.”
The statement follows backlash from other medical groups, with community pharmacies and private general practitioners (GPs) also criticising the looming medicine price display mandate.
The Malaysian Community Pharmacy Guild (MCPG) said pharmacies already display prices for over-the-counter (OTC) medicines and supplements, but the issue lies in price volatility. Updating price lists daily could impose unnecessary administrative burdens.
Doctors’ groups such as the MMA and the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners’ Associations, Malaysia (FPMPAM), have also opposed KPDN’s jurisdiction over drug price display, stressing that the medical profession should remain under the purview of MOH.
Most recently, a KPDN video on enforcement over price display at a car service workshop sparked backlash from private GPs, with FPMPAM raising concerns about its implications for medical practice.
FPMPAM president Dr Shanmuganathan TV Ganeson told CodeBlue that the main issue is not the act of displaying drug prices itself, but the broader implications of KPDN’s involvement in regulating medical practice, which he described as encroaching on the professionalism and autonomy of the medical field.
