The Ministry of Health’s (MOH) 2025 Guidelines on Online Healthcare Services were introduced with noble intentions to bring order to the digital health ecosystem and foster safe innovation.
But beneath the regulatory language lies a dangerous reality: these guidelines expose the Malaysian public to unregulated, unaccountable, and sometimes unscrupulous platform operators.
Let us be absolutely clear: MOH must immediately revisit and rewrite these guidelines, not just as a regulatory clean-up, but as a national duty to protect public health in the digital age.
Real Dangers, Real People, Real Harm
In recent years, Malaysia has already seen real-life examples of online platforms failing the very patients they claim to serve:
Case 1: E-Prescription Abuse via TPAs (Late 2024)
- Issue: Patients were receiving chronic medications through pharmacies based on e-prescriptions issued by doctors who had never seen them.
- Cause: TPAs and online platforms were bypassing proper follow-ups, allowing automated or third-party e-prescriptions.
- Risk: Violates the Poisons Act; risks patient harm due to unsupervised drug use.
- Outcome: MMA publicly warned MOH; regulators began drafting stricter online health care guidelines.
Case 2: Online Platform Controversy (2020)
- Issue: Users could order prescription medicines online before seeing a doctor. Doctor consultation only came after selecting drugs.
- Cause: Platform allowed access to Group B drugs without prior prescription validation.
- Risk: Enabled potential misuse, self-medication, or wrong drug dispensing.
- Outcome: Raised in Parliament; MOH was urged to act. The online platform later revised their workflow.
Multiple platforms still auto-match patients with doctors based on availability, not qualifications or case suitability, violating their own terms and Clause 5.1.6 of the MOH guideline.
These are not hypothetical risks. These are actual failures. And under the current 2025 Guidelines, these platforms walk away scot-free because the guidelines allow them to hide behind disclaimers and vague responsibilities.
The Fatal Flaw: Platform Providers Bear No Real Liability
Clause 5.1.11(a) of the 2025 Guidelines states that unless the platform directly employs the health care provider, it is not responsible for patient harm. This is unacceptable.
If platforms are allowed to profit from consultations, e-prescriptions, and drug deliveries, they must also bear the legal burden when something goes wrong. MOH must reject this Silicon Valley-style “platform immunity” model. In health care, you cannot outsource liability.
What MOH Must Do Immediately
Remove Disclaimers That Exonerate Platforms: The language in Clause 5.1.11 must be removed or reworded to assign joint liability to platforms and practitioners in cases of patient harm.
Mandate Platform Liability Insurance: Just as doctors are mandated to have malpractice insurance (Clause 7.2), platforms must be legally required to carry insurance for:
- Data breaches.
- Medical errors facilitated through their technology.
- Prescription or delivery errors.
- Patient harm due to system failure, auto-matching, or identity misclassification.
Establish an MOH Regulatory Unit for Digital Health Platforms: These platforms must be registered, audited, and subjected to real-time oversight by a dedicated MOH unit, with powers to:
- Suspend non-compliant platforms.
- Penalise repeat offenders.
- Investigate patient complaints with authority.
Make Professional Indemnity Insurance Mandatory for Platform Operators: Every company operating an e-health platform must demonstrate coverage for professional and public liability. This is standard in many countries. Malaysia must not be left behind.
Publish a Public Blacklist of Non-Compliant Platforms: Malaysians deserve to know which platforms fail to meet minimum safety and ethical standards. Transparency is the first step to accountability.
Health Care is Not GrabFood, Stop Treating It Like It Is
Let’s be clear: Online health care is not like hailing a ride or ordering pizza. A wrong match or late delivery in health care can mean disability, misdiagnosis, or death.
Platforms cannot hide behind technology, algorithms, or subcontractors. MOH has a moral and legal duty to hold them accountable.
These guidelines in their current form are dangerously permissive. They do not safeguard the rakyat. They protect corporate interests and legal loopholes. And that is a betrayal of public trust.
A Final Word To The MOH
The rakyat trusts the MOH to act as a guardian, not a passive observer of their health.
If a 16-year-old can be protected from buying cigarettes, why can a platform legally deliver controlled medications based on a bot-matched consultation with no follow-up?
We urge the MOH to act now, not after the next avoidable tragedy becomes headline news. These guidelines must be revised, strengthened, and enforced because lives are literally at stake.
Innovation is welcome. Exploitation is not.
Dr James Jeremiah is the immediate past president and founding president of the Association of Private Practitioners Sabah (APPS).
- This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of CodeBlue.
