KUALA LUMPUR, July 31 — An association representing doctors and a company operating medical clinics filed a judicial review application in the High Court here Tuesday to strike down a drug price display mandate.
The lawsuit by the Private Medical Practitioners Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (PMPASKL) and Medipulse Healthcare Sdn Bhd against the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025 follows a separate judicial review application by eight applicants, comprising seven medical and dental groups, and a Sabah-based general practitioner (GP), against the same mandate.
Like the July 24 judicial review bid by eight applicants, the July 29 suit by PMPASKL and Medipulse, which operates the Klinik Medipulse group of clinics, similarly named the domestic trade and cost of living minister, the health minister, and the government as the first, second, and third respondents respectively.
PMPASKL and Medipulse argued that the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 (Act 723) – under which the drug price display order was gazetted – cannot interfere with legislations specific to health care, namely the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586), the Poisons Act 1952 (Act 366), the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 (Act 368), the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act 1956 (Act 290), and the Medical Act 1971 (Act 50).
Applicants characterised these five health care laws collectively as a “Healthcare Regulatory Regime”.
“The Applicants contend that on a purposive interpretation of Act 723, read together with the legislation comprised in the Healthcare Regulatory Regime, Act 723 does not apply to medicines or drugs regulated by the various legislation,” said the applicants in their statement of claim, as sighted by CodeBlue.
PMPASKL and Medipulse cited Section 19 of the Poisons Act that empowers doctors to “sell, supply or administer” poisons to their patients solely for the purpose of medical treatment of their patients.
They pointed out that under the Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 under the Sale of Drugs Act, medical practitioners providing medical treatment to their patients are exempt from Regulation 7 on prohibition of manufacture, sale, supply, importation, possession, and administration.
Applicants said the 2006 regulations for private medical and dental clinics, as well as for private hospitals and other private health care facilities, under the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act already have specific provisions related to the labelling of drugs.
Section 107 of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act, they noted, specifically empowers the health minister to make various regulations regulating private health care facilities, including fee schedules and matters relating to patients’ rights.
They further pointed out that the drug price display order doesn’t take into account Section 4B of the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act 1956 that provides that all advertisements of medicines are regulated by and must be approved by the Medicines Advisory Board.
“In the circumstances, the Applicants contend that the Impugned Order is ultra vires the Healthcare Regulatory Regime as a whole, and the provisions set out above specifically.”
Indirect Effect Of Dispensing Separation, Worse Health Care Decisions By Poor Patients
PMPASKL and Medipulse claimed that the medicine price display order indirectly sought to separate dispensing of medicines away from licensed medical practitioners, “by creating the impression that medical practitioners are profiteering from medicines.”
They argued that the price display mandate did not take into consideration the nature of a patient’s visit to a private health care facility that is for a “medical consultation rather than for the mere purchase of medication”. Medication, they said, is part of integrated care following medical consultation and diagnosis.
“The Impugned Order also does not take into account the provisions of the Malaysian Medical Council’s (MMC) Code of Professional Conduct and the Guideline of the Malaysian Medical Council Good Dispensing Practice (Version 2/2025) which prohibits sale of drugs in a mercantile sense,” said PMPASKL and Medipulse.
“The Impugned Order will lead to worse health care decisions by poor patients, and risks leading to a situation where patients, especially those who are poor or with less means, will decide their health care decisions based entirely on the price of medicines rather than on the best medical advice.
“The inevitable effect of the Impugned Order is that the medical practitioners will be placed under tremendous pressure to prescribe cheaper but less optimal medications as patients may refuse best treatment based on cost of medications alone.”
Both applicants contended that the additional administrative burden of constantly updating the display of prices would increase a clinic’s operational costs. Drug price display would also affect a clinic’s operational revenue.
“The Impugned Order does not take into consideration the uneven playing field between big pharmacy chains and small private clinics. The former often enjoy bulk purchase discounts and are able to maintain static pricing, wherein the latter is affected by frequent supplier price fluctuations due to small scale procurement and often adjust stocks based on patient needs. It is therefore impractical for small clinics to update the price display from time to time.”
Applicants said the drug price display mandate would disincentivise patients from purchasing medicines from private clinics and other health care facilities, ultimately causing the closure of some clinics, particularly smaller ones.
They alleged a lack of “proper and adequate consultations”, including with PMPASKL and other organisations representing the medical profession, over the price transparency policy. The government also did not show comparative studies with other countries, nor provided an impact assessment or a pilot study.
“The Impugned Order was made without any empirical basis or evidence to justify the decision, wherein there was no widespread complaints of prices of medications at GP clinics,” said the applicants.
PMPASKL and Medipulse asked the court to quash the drug price display order, besides requesting a stay of enforcement against private health care facilities pending full disposal of their judicial review application.
Following the earlier judicial review application by eight applicants, Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad told reporters yesterday that the government would extend the grace period of educational enforcement of the drug price display rule until a court decision.
Although the drug price display order gazetted by Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN) Minister Armizan Mohd Ali, which requires private health care facilities and community pharmacies to display retail medicine prices, is legally under KPDN’s jurisdiction, the price transparency policy came from the Ministry of Health.
PMPASKL honorary secretary Dr Chang Chee Seong filed suit on behalf of his association. Dr Chang, a GP, is also the owner of Medipulse that operates Klinik Medipulse 24 Jam in Subang Jaya, Selangor. Both applicants are represented by Kanesalingam & Co.
