Skip to main content

How Effective Are the 2013 DPCO Regulations?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Regulating Pharmaceutical Prices in India

Part of the book series: India Studies in Business and Economics ((ISBE))

  • 328 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we examine whether the 2013 DPCO has been successful in making essential medicines more affordable. Before we do so, it is useful to recall historical assessments of previous versions of the DPCO. Historical accounts indicate that the implementation of DPCO regulations in India has been ineffective. In the 1970s, the implementation of the recommendations of the Hathi Committee were delayed by 4 years. Although the committee established the importance of focusing price regulation based on the ‘essentiality’ of drugs rather than their prices, the recommendation was forgotten by 2002, leading to a fresh debate on the issue. In 1979, the control of drug prices led to a troubling shortage of essential drugs, causing hardships for patients (Basak 2008). The drafting of the drug policy was delayed in the 1980s due to opposition from industry associations (EPW 1985). In 1986, the pharmaceutical policy was still unclear about what drugs needed to be brought under price regulation, allowing industry associations to influence regulators on behalf of the pharmaceutical firms (Bal 1986a, b). In 1990, the industry and trade associations warned about a possible nationwide strike unless the implementation of price control was postponed (EPW 1990). Similarly, after the implementation of the 1995 price control regime, prices of essential medicines rose, which benefited pharmaceutical producers (Malhotra 2010; Rane 1996). Before we examine the effectiveness of the 2013 DPCO, we discuss the assessment by the NPPA as well as an assessment by the pharmaceutical industry lobby in collaboration with IMS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Table 6.2 also reveals a significant limitation of the 2013 DPCO. While it controls the price of plain medicines, its combinations are excluded from regulation. Also, several larger, often-prescribed medicines within the same 3-digit therapeutic category are excluded. Overall, the use of relatively smaller, and insignificant medicines for comparison cannot be described as a strength of the IMS study design.

References

  • Bal, A. (1986a). Distortions in drug policy: Who is to be blamed? Economic and Political Weekly, 21(23), 1029–1032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bal, A. (1986b). Drug Policy. Economic and Political Weekly, 21, 2009–2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basak, S. C. (2008). The genesis of drug price control. PharmaBiz [online]. Available from http://pharmabiz.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?aid=42905&sid=9

  • Bhaumik, S. (2013). India’s health ministry bans pioglitazone, metamizole, and flupentixol-melitracen. British Medical Journal, 347, f4366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business Standard. (2014, March 19). Govt lifts ban on painkiller Analgin. Available online http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/govt-lifts-ban-on-painkiller-analgin-114031900803_1.html

  • DPCO. (2013, May 15). Drug price control order 2013. The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii). Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPW. (1985). Drug policy in limbo. Economic and Political Weekly, 20, 772–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPW. (1990). Towards a drug policy? Economic and Political Weekly, 25, 1919–1920.

    Google Scholar 

  • IMS Health. (2015). Assessing the impact of price control measures on access to medicines in India. IMS Health India Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, P. (2010). The impact of TRIPS on India: An access to medicines perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nautiyal, S. (2014a, September 25). Pharma cos have to comply with NPPA’s July 10 order although guidelines stands withdrawn. PharmaBiz.com

  • Nautiyal, S. (2014b, September 12). Cipla, Pfizer, Sanofi cut prices of diabetic, cardiac drugs as per NPPA order on July 10. PharmaBiz.com

  • Nautiyal, S. (2014c, July 24). Pharma cos refuse to cut prices of 108 products despite NPPA order on July 10. PharmaBiz.com

  • NPPA. (2017). Compliance with DPCO 1995 and DPCO 2013. Available online http://www.nppaindia.nic.in/order/stmt-14-03-2017.pdf

  • PharmaBiz. (2015). Price control unlikely to improve access to medicines in India: IMS study. PharmaBiz [online]. Available from http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=89417&sid=2

  • Rane, W. (1996, August 24–31). Analysis of drug prices, 1980–1995. Economic and Political Weekly, 31, 2331–2340.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bhaskarabhatla, A. (2018). How Effective Are the 2013 DPCO Regulations?. In: Regulating Pharmaceutical Prices in India. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93393-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics