The application by the Private Medical Practitioners Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (PMPASKL) and Medipulse Healthcare Sdn Bhd was filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday.
They named the health ministry, the domestic trade and cost of living ministry, and the government as respondents.
The challenge by PMPASKL and Medipulse Healthcare against the ruling, which came into effect on May 1, comes a day after it was reported that a general practitioner and seven health groups, including the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), had applied for leave for judicial review.
It was filed by the MMA, the Association of Private Practitioners Sabah, the Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine, the Organisation of Malaysian Muslim Doctors, the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations Malaysia, the Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association, the Society of Private Medical Practitioners Sarawak, and one Dr Saifulbahri Ahmad.
Like PMPASKL and Medipulse Healthcare, the eight named the two ministries and the government as respondents.
They want the rule to be nullified and its enforcement stayed by the court pending the disposal of their judicial review application.
They claim that the rule, under Section 10 of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act (Act 723), was gazetted in excess of the authority of the domestic trade and cost of living minister.
They contend that Section 10 of the Act cannot apply to drugs administered by health practitioners, which is provided for by Section 19 of the Poisons Act 1952 (Act 366), health news portal CodeBlue reported.
According to the document, PMPASKL and Medipulse Healthcare claim that the policy violates the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 as drugs prescribed by doctors are not considered “goods” under the said legislation.
They also claim that the ruling does not take into account Section 4B of the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act 1956 (Act 290) which regulates advertisements of medications.
“I believe that the order (to display medical prices) is ultra vires of the entire Health Regulatory Framework,” the affidavit, which was signed by Dr Chang Chee Seong, read. Chang is the PMPASKL’s honorary secretary.
Like the judicial review filed by the eight last Thursday, Chang said he believed that no proper and adequate consultation was carried out, or comparative studies conducted, before the policy was announced.
Under the policy, private healthcare providers are required to clearly display the prices of prescription and over-the-counter medicines, traditional products, and supplements.
Medical groups opposed the policy from the start, saying it should fall under the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 and be delayed pending a review of general practitioners’ consultation fees.
Earlier today, the health ministry said it would continue to advocate mandatory drug price displays at private healthcare facilities despite the challenge brought by medical groups to a court ruling on the matter.