PUTRAJAYA: The implementation of the medicine price display rule will go ahead on Aug 1, despite a judicial review filed by doctors to challenge the order, says Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.
The Health Minister stated that although doctors want the rule, which took effect on May 1, revoked due to its impact on small clinics and lack of proper consultation, the implementation will proceed.
"We are aware of the application for the judicial review. Nevertheless, the implementation of the order will proceed," he told reporters at a press conference after launching the National Health Technology Assessment (NHTA) Conference 2025 here on Wednesday (July 30).
He was asked to comment on the judicial review filed by the Association of Private Practitioners, Sabah (APPS), the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), the Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine (Maafim), the Organisation of Malaysian Muslim Doctors (Perdim), the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations Malaysia (FPMPAM), the Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association (MPDPA), the Society of Private Medical Practitioners Sarawak (SPMPS), and one Dr Saifulbahri Ahmad.
ALSO READ: Private doctors file lawsuit against government over medicine price display regulation
The judicial review is in relation to the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025, which came into effect on May 1.
The lawsuit named the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister, Health Minister, and the Federal Government as the first, second, and third respondents, respectively.
A three-month grace period from May 1 has been given, during which no compounds would be issued, and the government would instead focus on advocacy and education.
According to the court’s website, the suit, filed on July 24, is set for case management at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Aug 22.
The statement of claim filed on July 24 seeks a declaration that the ministry’s order was void and tainted with illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness, disproportionality, and impropriety.
The plaintiffs requested that the enforcement of the ministry’s order "insofar as its application to private healthcare facilities and/or registered medical practitioners and dentists" be stayed until the judicial review case is concluded.
They argued that the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister breached principles of natural justice by making the decision without consulting registered medical practitioners represented by the MMA.
The group stated that while the regulation aims to curb profiteering, it has led to unwarranted competition among drug providers, focusing solely on drug prices.
Dr Dzulkefly said the ministry will allow the law to take its course with regard to the legal suit naming him.
"I have no problems with it. Let the judicial process take its course. We have to respect this process," he added.
Regarding enforcement of the ruling, Dr Dzulkefly said the ministry will continue with educational enforcement and advocacy for the time being.
However, he did not specify the duration of the advocacy period before those flouting the rule would be penalised.
