“States Have Failed…”: Supreme Court On Affordable Drugs, Medical Equipment
State governments have failed in ensuring affordable medical care and infrastructure, the Supreme Court said Tuesday, offering scathing criticism of states’ failure to deliver reasonably-priced medicines, particularly in case of essential drugs, for people from poorer sections of society.
This failure, the court noted had “facilitated and promoted private hospitals”.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and NK Singh was hearing a Public Interest Litigation arguing that private hospitals were compelling patients, and their families, to buy medicines, implants, and other medical care items from in-house pharmacies that imposed exorbitant mark-ups.
The PIL sought direction to private hospitals to not compel the patients to purchase only from the hospital pharmacies and alleged also that the centre and states had failed to take regulatory and correctional measures, as a result of which patients are being exploited.
“We agree with you… but how to regulate this?” Justice Surya Kant asked.
The court eventually noted it is the duty of states to ensure proper medical care.
It observed also that some states had not been able to deliver the requisite medical care and, therefore, had “facilitated and promoted private entities”.
These state governments were told to regulate such entities.
They were told to ensure private hospitals do not compel patients, and families, to buy from in-house pharmacies, particularly when the same drug or product is available cheaper elsewhere.
The central government, meanwhile, was told to frame guidelines to guard against private hospitals and medical institutions exploiting citizens.
The court, though, also noted it may not be advisable for it to issue mandatory directions, but that it is necessary to sensitise state governments on this issue.
The top court had earlier issued notice to states on this issue.
Counter-affidavits had been filed by several states, including Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan.
On the issue of medicine prices, states said they relied on price control orders issued by the centre, and that prices of essential drugs are fixed to ensure availability at reasonable rates.
In their response, they also questioned the locus standi, or right to be heard on behalf of an individual or group, of the petitioners, pointing out that fair-price shops have been set up for government-run hospitals. On this, the court noted, “We may hasten to that most states have highlighted state-run schemes which are meant to ensure drugs, medical consumables, and medical services are available at affordable prices.”
The centre also filed a reply, in which it said there is no compulsion for patients to buy medicines from hospital pharmacies.
