Bitter Pills: Why the Gap Between Price to Retailer and MRP Is a Hidden Kickback, and How to Close It

Source: Original editorial ↗ The Hindu

Resources for this Article

Download PDF Print-ready A4 notes · Free

The Lift Line

“The practice does not technically amount to a kickback but is one economically.”

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

The Hindu’s unsigned editorial of 1 October 2026 follows the Supreme Court hearing of 29 September, in which a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked why a uniform retail margin should not apply across drugs. We reported that hearing in our 30 September roundup and, as background, the wider drug-pricing case in our 23 September deep dive. The editorial supplies the economics: why ceilings fail, and what kind of margin cap would work.

GS Paper 2: Issues relating to development and management of health; government policies and interventions. GS Paper 3: Pricing and regulation; consumer protection.

Background and Context

How a ceiling price leaks (the editorial’s example).

Step	Figure
NPPA’s market-derived average price of a scheduled drug	Rs 100
Ceiling price (including the margin allowed in the formula)	Rs 116
Price at which the hospital buys from the manufacturer (PTR)	Rs 50
Price the patient (or a government scheme) is billed	Rs 116, within the ceiling
Hospital’s margin	Rs 66

The institutions.

Body or law	Role
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), 1997	Fixes and enforces ceiling prices; under the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers
Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO), 2013	Issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; ceiling prices for drugs in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)
Trade Margin Rationalisation, 2019	Proof of concept: margins of 42 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs capped at 30%; prices of 526 brands fell by up to 91%
Competition Commission of India	Has examined hospitals that compel patients to buy from in-house pharmacies

The Analysis

1. The buyer is not the payer. For prescription drugs dispensed in hospitals, the hospital chooses the brand and the patient pays. Manufacturers therefore compete for hospitals with margins, not for patients with low prices.

2. A kickback in all but name. A high MRP and a low PTR leave a margin that rewards the hospital for stocking a brand. Cheaper equivalents lose because they earn hospitals less.

3. Captive pharmacies remove the exit. When patients must buy from the hospital’s own pharmacy, they cannot shop around, and normal price competition stops working.

4. The gap in the law. The DPCO caps the final price of scheduled drugs, not the margin inside it, and does not cap non-scheduled drugs at all except through special measures such as the 2019 exercise.

5. A better cap. A flat percentage mark-up across all drugs is appealing, but it still rewards selling costlier products. The editorial proposes a regressive margin: a smaller percentage as the drug’s price rises.

6. Why the Court had to step in. It acted after refusing to intervene in Siddharth Dalmia (2025), because the Union and the States have not corrected the absence of normal market mechanisms.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

Regulation:

• NPPA: set up 1997; under the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers.
• DPCO 2013: issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; covers NLEM (scheduled) drugs.
• DPCO 2013 allows a 16% retailer margin in computing the ceiling price.

The 2019 proof of concept:

• NPPA capped trade margins of 42 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs at 30% (2019).
• Prices of 526 brands fell by up to 91%, as the editorial cites the Department of Pharmaceuticals.

⚠️ Watch the trap: The NPPA regulates prices; the CDSCO (under the Drugs Controller General of India, Ministry of Health) regulates quality, approval and safety of drugs.

The Debate

For the editorial’s view. Margins are demonstrably compressible; patients and public insurers pay for a distortion in incentives, and a regulatory fix is overdue.

The complications. Distribution of specialty drugs (cold chains, low volumes) has real costs; caps set too low may cause withdrawals or shortages; hospitals may shift margins to procedures and room charges.

The balanced verdict. Cap trade margins with a regressive scale, cover legitimate distribution costs, let patients buy outside hospitals, and monitor availability. The executive, not only the Court, must own the reform.

How to Think About This

Find the principal-agent problem. When the person who chooses (the hospital) is not the person who pays (the patient), prices follow the chooser’s incentives. Good regulation targets that incentive, here the margin, rather than only the final price.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Problem: MRP up to 1,000% above PTR for some drugs.
• Mechanism: hospitals choose brands; margins act as kickbacks.
• Gap: DPCO 2013 caps final price, not trade margin.
• Evidence: 2019 cap on 42 cancer drugs cut prices of 526 brands by up to 91%.
• Fix: regressive margin cap; patient choice of pharmacy.

Sources: The Hindu, NPPA, Department of Pharmaceuticals

Source: Bitter Pills: Why the Gap Between Price to Retailer and MRP Is a Hidden Kickback, and How to Close It — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis

Key Arguments at a Glance

The Hindu argues that the Supreme Court did well to question the gap between the price to retailer (PTR) and the maximum retail price (MRP) of drugs, a gap that works economically as a kickback to hospitals; it arises from a hole in the Drug (Prices Control) Order, 2013, and should be closed by capping trade margins, ideally on a regressive scale.

✓ Supporting

• For some drugs, including cancer drugs, the MRP exceeds the PTR by up to 1,000%; since these drugs are not sold over the counter, hospitals choose the brand, so manufacturers compete for hospitals, not patients.
• Firms set inflated MRPs and low PTRs so that the hospital pockets the difference; when hospitals force patients to buy from in-house pharmacies, as Competition Commission investigations have found, cheaper equivalents lose out and patients may abandon long treatments.
• The DPCO 2013 caps the final ceiling price of scheduled drugs but not the margin on hospital transactions: with a ceiling of Rs 116, a hospital buying at Rs 50 can still bill Rs 116 and keep Rs 66, even from government schemes.
• In 2019, the NPPA capped trade margins of 42 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs at 30%, and prices of 526 brands fell by up to 91%, showing that the margins were compressible.

⚠ Counter

The editorial states no counter-case; the strongest one is this. A uniform percentage cap on margins can push sellers towards costlier brands and may squeeze legitimate distribution and storage costs, especially for cold-chain and low-volume specialty drugs; aggressive caps could also cause shortages.

→ Way Forward

The editorial proposes a fixed markup paired with a regressive margin, a smaller percentage as the price rises, to remove the incentive to push expensive brands, and faults the Union and States for not acting. Ujiyari’s synthesis adds: extend margin rationalisation beyond scheduled drugs and let patients buy outside hospital pharmacies.