- LOGIN
- MemberShip
- 2026-05-01 13:10:19
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View] Pharmaceutical dept. needs independence
- by Lee, Hye-Kyung Dec 18, 2020 06:06am
- The 'Rules on the Standards for National Health Insurance Medical Care Benefits' revised and implemented by the MOHW on October 8 became the basis for negotiating all reimbursed drugs with the NHIS. At the time, the pharmaceutical industry could not realize the 'power' of the rule amendment, but the NHIS emphasized that all drugs that need to be listed on the drug reimbursement list will go through a negotiation process through meetings with the pharmaceutical industry. The specific basis is that Article 11-2, Paragraph 7 of the Rules, 'All drugs evaluated as having appropriate benefits shall be determined after negotiation within the range of 60 days'. All drugs for which the HIRA has evaluated reimbursement adequacy, so-called all drugs that are about to be listed, must be negotiated with the NHIS. The pharmaceutical industry realized the power of this revised rule through the start of generic drug negotiations. When the HIRA's drug price calculation is complete, the NHIS negotiations have been added to the generic registration process in which the registration was made. Conditions for implementation such as risk-sharing drugs, ▲ confidentiality, ▲ other matters necessary for stable medical care benefits and financial management of health insurance, etc., must be discussed in order to be listed on the list. Small and medium-sized pharmaceutical companies that have not participated in new drug price negotiations or Price-Volume agreements are the first to negotiate with the NHIS. The NHIS says it cannot negotiate a stable supply or quality control for drugs that have not yet been produced. Following the generic negotiations and non-listing of drugs that have not yet been produced, the NHIS also took over the contract for reimbursement of benefits for listed drugs, including 'Choline alfoscerate' formulation, which is about to undergo clinical re-evaluation of the MFDS. The NHIS will sign a payback contract for 230 items of clinical reevaluation drugs by February 9th next year. Drugs subject to additional reevaluation, which will be implemented on January 1 of next year, will also go through the negotiation process of the NHIS. The NHIS drug-related department, which had been the main task of follow-up management such as additional revaluation of clinical reevaluation drug benefits and additional reevaluation drugs will be carried out. The NHIS is in charge of the management of all reimbursed drugs, and pharmaceutical companies feel that the 'power' of the drug department of the NHIS is weaker than the NHIS. Currently, among the NHIS's salary strategy office, the pharmaceutical department consists of four departments: Drug Price System Improvement Department, Drug Price Negotiation Department, Drug Price Post Management Department, and Generic Negotiation Management Department. The HIRA's pharmaceutical department, which started with 3 teams with the introduction of the positive list system in 2006, has grown to 14 teams as of October this year. Of the 107 employees in the Benefit Strategy Office, 62 (54 currently employed, 22 pharmacists) are occupied by the drug-related department. It can be said that the pharmaceutical department has sufficient conditions for the workload and capacity to be independent. The possibility of independence of the pharmaceutical department became an issue every time as the size of the organization increased. The NHIS has been examining the organization this year and reviewing organizational improvement to enhance its status as an insurer. This included expansion of the organization and coordination of work between departments, and it was also discussed that the drug department should be promoted to a management group to form a separate organization. It will be 14 years since the drug price negotiation system between the NHIS and pharmaceutical companies was introduced next year. As the workload related to drugs increases, the number of pharmacists is also increasing. The independence of the department with professional manpower is expected to expand the status of the NHIS pharmacists with the strengthening of the organization's status in the future.
- Opinion
- [Contribution]Which is the first among COVID tx & vaccine?
- by Kang, Shin-Kook Dec 16, 2020 06:14am
- As vaccination has begun in foreign countries and the approval of antibody treatments in Korea is imminent, the need to establish strategies for quarantine is urgently emerging. Will the vaccination aim for population immunity, or will it aim for the effect of preventing severe disease and preventing spread by administering early treatment along with early diagnosis? Seo Jeong-jin, Chairman of Celltrion, is proposing a method of early administration of the treatment based on the fact that the safety of the vaccine has not been secured. This argument is a matter that urgently needs to make decisions in our society. It seems necessary to compare the treatment and vaccination in terms of not only the health damage caused by the side effects of vaccination, but also the effect of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. In general, preventing infectious diseases as a treatment is ineffective, so vaccination is chosen without the need for comparison. However, it is necessary to consider it as an alternative to a vaccine, as Celltrion and others are developing the same as antibody formation, which is the target of a vaccine as an antibody treatment. In the early stages of COVID-19 infection, even before or after the explosive growth and release phase of the virus, the vaccine can be replaced with a therapeutic agent if it can be prevented by the administration of antibody therapy. If it is possible, outpatient treatment (or very short-term facility isolation) instead of hospitalization may be possible for asymptomatic patients, so self-treatment from administration of antibody therapy from early diagnosis can be used to replace vaccines. There is currently no basis for confirming such an effect. However, it will be very realistic if clinical data such as Celltrion are positively aggregated. Chairman Seo Jeong-jin said in an interview with YouTube that he has already finished producing antibody treatments for 100,000 Koreans. It seems to be sufficient considering that the number of confirmed patients currently in need of treatment is around 10,000. For the antibody treatment of 100,000 people, about 8 million tests are needed, considering that the cumulative COVID-19 positive rate is 1.2%. In this case, a cost of about ₩1.6 trillion is expected when the price of a diagnostic kit of about ₩20,000, specimen collection cost of about ₩160,000, and the treatment price of about ₩400,000 as announced by Chairman Seo. This is advantageous compared to the estimated vaccine administration cost of ₩1.3 trillion (AstraZeneca) and ₩2.5 trillion (Modena), taking into account the cost of vaccine and treatment to receive a vaccine for 25 million Koreans. However, the costs not included are uncertainties about the cost of adverse effects of the vaccine and the possibility of failure or delay in quarantine of the antibody therapy. Such a judgment will be possible only when the clinical results of antibody therapeutics and the ability to block transmission are revealed. However, if very promising results come out, new test guidelines and behavioral guidelines for early preemptive testing and outpatient treatment for COVID-19 must be prepared urgently in response to them. It would be said that prompt and flexible policy responses from government authorities are required.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Notes on seeking for COVID-19 vaccine
- by An, Kyung-Jin Dec 14, 2020 05:59am
- The novel coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is spreading at a concerning rate in South Korea. Although the social distancing level was raised to 2.5 two weeks after the government ordered the social distancing level 2 on Nov. 24, the third wave of pandemic seems to keep rising. The authority is even considering on raising the level up to 3, as the daily count of positive cases exceeded 1,000. Regardless, the hope for the end of COVID-19 is growing. A COVID-19 vaccine co-developed by Pfizer and BioNTech has earned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization on Dec. 11 local time. The authorization was made a day after the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) issued a recommendation to FDA, making the U.S. the sixth country to approve of COVID-19 vaccine use following the U.K., Bahrain, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. The U.S. government reaffirmed its strong determination to accelerate the vaccination speed by moving up the recommended vaccination schedule set by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The nationwide COVID-19 vaccine distribution in the U.S. has started, and experts predict the vaccination can begin from Dec. 14 local time at the latest. Also the U.S. authority is highly likely to grant emergency use authorization on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine by the end of the month. Multiple factors played a part to turn around what seemed like the impossible ‘vaccination before Christmas’ and made it actually possible. Since the confirmation of the pandemic, the U.S. Federal Government has been conducting what is called the Operation Warp Speed. The program is an effort led by several U.S. government bodies to rapidly move the development, manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. A long-time Star Trek fan and a director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at FDA, Peter Marks apparently suggested the particular name in April immediately after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) briefing. The chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, Gen. Gustave F. Perna is leading the program. Regardless of the speculation around the political intervention, the Trump administration aggressively funded the pharmaceutical companies seeking for COVID-19 vaccine by signing the pre-order contracts with the vaccine makers. When they were short of injection needles and other equipments, the U.S. Department of Defense reportedly flew the needed equipments within 48 hours. The super expedited COVID-19 vaccine commercialization was possible with the U.S. government’s full support backed by the Department of Defense and HHS with long history of developing and distributing vaccine. Fundamentally, the attempt to even accelerate the vaccine development and distribution was made, because the pharmaceutical giants, Pfizer and Moderna valued at KRW 250 trillion and KRW 68 trillion, respectively, were confident with their colossal capital and technology. The pandemic shortened typically a decade-long vaccine development process at unimaginable speed. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna’s vaccines are designed around a new technology involving messenger RNA (mRNA), which vastly differs from the conventional vaccine mechanism. A genetic substance of mRNA is injected to a human body to generate antibody and induce immune reaction. The threat of pandemic has opened up a new opportunity for the history of mankind. The regular healthy people have a long journey ahead to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. But the people exhausted from the COVID-19 would be full of hope to finally overcome the infectious virus—a thought of the day we return to the daily life without wearing masks. And hopefully, the South Korean government would also assess the vaccines swiftly but accurately, when COVID-19 vaccine makers apply for an approval.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Real reasons for disqualification?
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Dec 11, 2020 06:15am
- A multinational pharmaceutical company Sanofi Korea has failed to qualify as a certified innovative pharmaceutical company. Fairness aside, the transparency in the process seems questionable. Since its first certification won in 2014, the company lost its certification status after six years. Now, only three multinational companies—AstraZeneca, Janssen and Ostuka Pharmaceutical—are certified as innovative pharmaceutical companies in South Korea. The certification is definitely not permanent; if a certified company is disqualified, then the company’s benefit should be taken away. But the problem here is that there is no known reason behind the disqualification. An innovative pharmaceutical company is evaluated based on investment performance, manufacturing facility status, R&D vision and strategy, collaboration and partnership with local and overseas university and research institute, licensing contract, business ethics and business transparency. Reportedly, Sanofi has passed all the ‘quantitative criteria’ for the evaluation. In other words, the reviewers saw disqualifying factor in ‘qualitative criteria.’ But the details have not been disclosed. To Daily Pharm, the government official answered, “The innovative pharmaceutical company certification takes account of not only quantitative evaluation, but also quantitative evaluation.” However, Sanofi Korea has no clue on why they failed the qualification. Their answer of ‘qualitative evaluation is also used’ is not a justifiable answer. They need to state how the company’s qualitative factor scored lower than the passing score. The rumor has it that ‘the health authority was offended by Sanofi terminating the licensing contract with Hanmi Pharmaceutical,’ or ‘the government is trying to reduce the ratio of certified multinational companies.’ But the government lacking transparency has no rights reprimand the rumors. The innovative pharmaceutical company certification program allows the authority to officially certify and grant benefits to the qualifying companies. Fairness and transparency is essential to the program. At least the disqualified companies should have feedback to consider either prepare for the certification reapply or not. The poor reputation of ‘offending the authority is a surefire disqualification’ cannot be good. If such situation continues to happen, then Sanofi would not be alone in this. The relationship between multinational pharmaceutical companies and South Korea should not be overlooked. The country still does not have sovereignty over new drug. Without a clear guideline on the government’s key program for those companies bringing new drugs, the country and the companies’ headquarters could spark a conflict. Even private companies and universities are enforcing ‘blind interview’ to reinforce transparency in the application process. A head coach keeping a silence to a player asking why they are benched should not complain for being replaced.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Haste makes waste
- by Dec 04, 2020 05:55am
- The commercialization of the COVID-19 vaccine is approaching. The UK has already announced that the Pfizer vaccine will be approved for emergency use for the first time in the world and will be supplied early next week. Excluding vaccines from Russia and China that are not internationally recognized, this is the fastest action. The British government has also secured a dose for 20 million people. Other countries are in a hurry as the UK preemptively commercializes vaccines. It is reported that the United States will also receive vaccines by Pfizer/Modena within this month. According to CNN, the United States will go through a meeting of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) advisory committee on the 10th to decide whether to approve it, and receive Pfizer on the 15th and Modena vaccine on the 22nd. It will be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available. In addition, there are many opinions in Korea asking for a vaccine. Some say that in the third epidemic of COVID-19, the government must quickly approve, contract, and proceed with vaccination. Currently, the Korean government has completed a purchase contract with AstraZeneca, signed an MOU with Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, and is known to be negotiating with Modena. I agree with the opinion that amid the COVID-19 pandemic that continues for the first year, the situation should be pacified with rapid vaccination. However, it seems that a more careful approach is needed at times like this. This is because the current vaccine is not the absolute thing to end COVDI-19. Rushing has no advantage in negotiations. Currently, the vaccine manufacturers hold all the cards. They said they demanded a 'side-effect immunity' from all countries that the manufacturer is not responsible for any side effects from those who received the vaccine. It is a condition that is unthinkable under normal circumstances, but in the COVID-19 outbreak, the development period, which took more than 10 years, had to be drastically reduced, so this demand can also be raised. In this situation, if the government is in a hurry, there is a possibility that negotiations will proceed on more unfavorable terms. Getting the vaccine quickly doesn't mean everything The confusion is even greater if unexpected side effects occur one after another or if the vaccine's effectiveness is less than expected. Rather, it is much more stable to proceed with vaccination while taking a closer look at the trends of other countries where vaccination was started. Currently, there are 400~500 confirmed cases in Korea every day, but the situation is not urgent enough to urgently introduce a new substance whose efficacy and safety are not fully guaranteed. In addition, there are not one or two guidelines to be established before the vaccine is introduced, such as distribution method, the institutions, and order of vaccination. We already had already suffered from an urgent vaccination schedule just a few months ago, and the flu vaccines were exposed to room temperature during delivery. The process of delivering about 10 million doses of the flu vaccine, which is said to be easy to manage, was also difficult. Can we safely deliver tens of millions of doses of a much more difficult mRNA vaccine? It is necessary to prepare the cold chain thoroughly over time. What makes the confusing situation worse is the unpredictable factor. We need to be able to put the new variable, the vaccine, into the most predictable range. Vaccines are neither absolute nor complete solutions to COVID-19 outbreak. "Vaccines are just one tool for controlling disease," said Albert Bourla, CEO of vaccine maker Pfizer. "We have to be on the lookout for absolute belief in vaccines," he said.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View]Drugs fluctuating prices should be excluded
- by Lee, Hye-Kyung Nov 24, 2020 09:01am
- The lawsuit for canceling eye drops’ price ended with the Supreme Court's ruling. Recently, the Supreme Court did not accept the appeal of 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Kookje, filed against the government to cancel a lawsuit for canceling the disposition of lowering the upper limit on the reimbursement of eye drops. After the defeat of the Supreme Court by eight pharmaceutical companies including Daewoo in September, the government won all of the remaining trials. The lawsuit for lowering the drug price for eye drops was conducted by pharmaceutical companies who opposed the enforcement of the government's notice in August 2018. It started with a trial divided into Kookje and Daewoo. It took place over only two years. The problem is that drug price cuts and recovery were repeatedly performed in this process. About 12,000 pharmacies were subject to confirmation in the '2020 Secondary Medical Institution Purchased Drug Price Periodic Check' in August, which corresponds to the '4th quarter of 2018', when the actual eye drop drug price cut and the drug purchase drug price and billing unit analysis time were combined. The HIRA compares the billed unit price with the weighted average of the purchase price of eye drops during the drug price cut period, resulting in inconsistent claims in the majority of pharmacies handling eye drops. Regular confirmation of the price of purchased drugs at pharmacies resumed from May 2018. The reason for the resumption of regular confirmation was that the discrepancy between the purchase price and the billed unit price continued to increase, but the pharmacy suffered damage from the government's drug price cut and the drug company's lawsuit. Of course, if the pharmacy updates the billing software every day and constantly checks the drug price file, it can avoid false claims, but it can be an administrative burden for pharmacists who operate single pharmacies. Therefore, in the case of items such as eye drops, which have a wide range of insurance drug prices due to administrative lawsuits between the government and pharmaceutical companies, there seems to be a need to exclude them from the regular confirmation of the purchased drug price or subject to field investigation. However, if the HIRA establishes 'advance drug price verification system', the pharmacy should also actively make an effort such as checking the weighted average price at the same time as billing.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] The sluggish shift in stepped pricing
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Nov 18, 2020 06:34am
- In June, South Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) issued an administrative notice to withdraw the plan to apply the stepped drug pricing reduction on drugs transferred by business restructuring. And it has been three months since the ministry completed collecting the public opinion in August. But the finalized notice has not been disclosed. When the decision was made, the pharmaceutical industry seemed relieved and also complimented the government for swiftly changing the policy to reflect the public opinion. Daily Pharm also praised the MOHW’s action as an example of a ‘Smart healthcare administration.” However, the companies, who were relieved about the change and pushing on with their product transfer along with the business restructuring, are now idling. Some even assumed the final notice was issued and proceeded with the healthcare reimbursement listing procedure, which they ended up withdrawing. Initially, the stepped drug pricing, in effective from August, sets the upper limit pricing of a drug, regardless of qualifying two criteria for top-level pricing, at 85 percent of either the lowest pricing or 38.69 percent of the first-in-class drug, if the number of listed same-substance drugs exceeds 20. However, the Pharmaceutical Decision and Adjustment Criteria amended in last February opened up a room for the stepped pricing to be used on a product that succeeds business status due to corporate restructuring—for example in case of M&A, corporate split or license sell-off. Accordingly, companies like Pfizer Pharmaceutical Korea (Upjohn) and MSD Korea (Organon) preparing for multiple transfer of original products to the respective split off companies, fear of the possible pricing reduction. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Korea that recently sold off an antidiabetic treatment pipeline to Celltrion could not be completely free from the same fear. The controversy seemed to have died out as the ministry decided to set the upper limit price as before, according to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act Article 89 notified to be enforced in June, when a drug is transferred by inheritance, business transfer or merge; a manufacturing license is switched to an import license or vice versa; and license is dropped and receives license as a same-substance drug due to Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, MFDS notice or the corporate status change. When a government body admits finding an error or side effect in a policy and decides to take a change, speed also becomes an integral part. Surely, the government body has to take time to carefully consider consequences. Taking numerous reconsiderations, even after accepting the public opinion, makes sense for such major policy shift like reviving the stepped drug pricing system. Regardless, the pricing reduction on the transferring original product should be a minor amendment. The speed is crucial for the significant shift in policy. Affected companies are already missing the business schedule. The bigger problem is that they still cannot fathom when it would be finalized. When there are companies waiting and the precious time is ticking away, the companies at least deserve an explanation.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View] Did they have to sell that day?
- by An, Kyung-Jin Nov 16, 2020 06:03am
- The whole world was excited when the news about COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer last week was delivered. This is because Pfizer announced an interim result that the mRNA vaccine, which is being developed jointly with BioNTech in Germany, showed more than 90% prevention effect. The company recruited about 44,000 participants in clinical trials from five countries, including the United States, and divided them into two groups, receiving COVID-19 vaccine on one side and a placebo on the other. Among them, as a result of analyzing 94 people who were diagnosed with COVID-19, participants who received the vaccine twice had an infection rate of less than 10%, and no serious side effects were observed. Uğur Şahin, CEO of BioNTech, said in an interview with foreign media, "I believe that this vaccine can end COVID-19 outbreak." As the spread of COVID-19 across the United States is accelerating, including the tightening of blockade measures in major cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, starting with New York, it is expected that the current level of data alone will provide dramatic protection effects. Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, said, "We will apply for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the third week of November." and he added,"Vaccines can be manufactured in quantities that can inoculate 15 to 20 million people within the year." In the long term, Pfizer is planning to increase the dose of vaccine to 1.3 billion doses per year. Although it has been pointed out that detailed clinical data has not been disclosed and there are many issues to be solved, such as the distribution process, the good news that came after a long time moved the market. As the anticipation for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine and economic recovery was reflected, the New York Stock Market continued to rise overall, and Pfizer's share price rose about 15%. However, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla sold a large number of stocks on the day of the announcement of the interim results of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. On that day, CEO Albert Bourla sold 62% of Pfizer's shares he owned and made a profit of ₩6.19 billion. Pfizer's vice president Sally Susman is also reported to have sold 44,000 treasury shares for $1.8 million (₩2 billion) on the same day. Of course, there is no legal problem with their selling. Pfizer said, "The sale of this stock is part of Bulla's personal financial plan and a pre-determined plan." The stock sale was approved on August 19th (local time), and the sale was made in accordance with the insider trading regulations, but there are no matters that violate the regulations. Nevertheless, public opinion is not good about this. There are also criticisms that it was inappropriate for Pfizer to announce the interim results of the clinical trial on the day the CEO decided to sell the treasury stock. As a result, doubts about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine, which are still not established, have been raised. Moreover, this is not the first time such a controversy. Controversy arose as US pharmaceutical company Modena executives sold their stocks and earned profits after announcing the results of the interim phase I clinical trial of COVID-19 vaccine in May of this year. Even at this time, the company held a position that there was no legal problem with the executives' stock sales. The development of COVID-19 vaccine and an end to the pandemic are the wishes of not only investors who own Pfizer shares, but also the people around the world. Could they have acted more carefully if they were conscious of their responsibility for such aspirations? We hope that the stock sale will end in controversy as the remaining vaccine development and supply schedules proceed smoothly.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] ERP should be kept ‘voluntary-basis’
- by Nov 12, 2020 06:19am
- The pharmaceutical industry is bracing themselves as winter is coming with the management offering early retirement program (ERP). Lilly Korea, a South Korean branch of the U.S.-based Eli Lilly’, has presented the ERP plan to reduce a quarter of its sales force. It is its first ERP after three years since 2017. Only Lilly Korea has officially announced the ERP plan, but the industry sources hint many more multinational pharmaceutical companies are preparing for the program as well. But what should be highlighted is that these multinational companies’ ERP is not local specific, but rather a part of reorganization trend apparent throughout the world. The global pharmaceutical companies are unfolding the strategy of focusing on selected key resources. Pfizer split off the off-patent drug business as a whole, while MSD is also planning to spin off female healthcare and off-patent products. Sanofi has announced its major downsizing plan to vastly shrink the antidiabetic and other chronic disease treatment business. Instead, the company is focusing on autoimmune disease and anticancer therapies. The wave of reorganization occurring outside of South Korea is now impacting the Korean branches as well. There is no reason for the executives to keep the employees under the departments to be closed. In the process of reorganization in Europe, Sanofi has notified its plan to lay off about over 400 employees under the chronic disease department. Moreover, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been worsening the situation. As the sales and marketing activities have turned noncontact-focused online events, the company has a justifiable reason to downsize the sales force. The real motivation of ERP, the voluntary-basis retirement, seems to be out of reach for the employees in the multinational companies. The management claims they are only accepting voluntary applicants. However, the employees, especially the ones in the targeted department, would feel immensely insecure. They predict the management would eventually pressure the specific departments’ employees, when the management does not see a satisfying number of volunteers. This is why the labor unions in the multinational companies are constantly demanding the management to disclose transparent ERP procedure and to promise to provide the program without pressure. Reorganization and downsizing could be inevitable for a company to survive and relentlessly seek for changes. But a company is an organization that a board of executives cannot take a full control over the employees. If the employees are not taking the ERP offer as expected, than the management should follow legal procedure and offer more favorable options or change the objectives accordingly. Hopefully the approaching winter would not be so harsh, so the ‘voluntary retirement’ does not turn into a ‘pressured retirement.’
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view]Double regulation of penalties for rebates
- by Lee, Jeong-Hwan Nov 02, 2020 06:12am
- Rebates in the Pharmaceutical Industry's trick to `ship to pharmacies' has been repeated for decades. Some of them are established as practice and are taken for granted. During the two-week grace period given by the MFDS prior to the suspension of sale, pharmaceutical companies are actually making total sales by releasing drugs that cannot be sold for three months (6 months of second detection) to pharmacies. The grace period given to alleviate discomfort for patients taking medication is rather abused as a intensive promotion period for disposal items of Rebates in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Moreover, the inconvenience of pharmacists who have to pre-order stocks in order to dispense drugs that will be temporarily sold out due to the suspension of sales is also aggravated. The 21st National Assembly Health and Welfare Committee urged the MFDS to realize regulations as a result of eradicating disease. Kang Seon-woo, a member of Democratic Party of Korea focused on current regulations that do not directly punish pharmaceutical companies which have committed illegal administrative dispositions for rebates. The target of the disposition is pharmaceutical companies, but as they regulate medicines, the damage is transferred to patients who take medicine for disease treatment and to pharmacies in charge of dispensing. The sales of eight pharmaceutical companies, which were caught in rebates last year, sold items for sale within the two-week grace period was four times that of the previous month (the average sales growth rate of eight companies increased by 396%). The current regulation is a trickery that advances the timing of drugs to be sold during the disposal period within the grace period, and the effectiveness of suspension of sale is extremely low. Pharmacists are very embarrassed when they face a patient who gives out a prescription including out-of-stock drugs. In preparation for this, if a pharmacy pre-orders inventory as a temporary action, the nature of the ban on rebates is completely lost. Therefore, pharmacists are saying that the suspension of sales of rebate drugs should be replaced with punitive penalties imposed on pharmaceutical companies, or the prescription itself should be prevented by suspension of benefits. Earlier at the time of the parliamentary inspection, Lee Eui-kyung, Director of the MFDS, was reluctant to respond to the proposal that it was necessary to replace the suspension of sales with a fine. As the Health Insurance Act regulates lowering the rebate drug price and the Fair Trade Act also imposes penalties on rebate pharmaceutical companies, she is concerned that the collection of additional penalties under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act may act as a double regulation. However, it was not appropriate as an answer to the improvement in the sale of illegal rebate drugs. In the case of illegal rebate violations prohibited by the current pharmacist law, the administrative disposition is 3 months suspension of sales at the first detection, 6 months suspension of sales at the second detection, and cancellation of the license for the third time. The fact that pharmacies and pharmacies and wholesalers of rebate items can be sold out without economic damage until the second detection, when the sale is suspended for six months, can trigger an unfair result of allowing two rebates. The eradication of illegal rebates is an obligation that the MFDS must take the lead. It is also the duty of the MFDS to make invalid sales suspensions ineffective by collecting a penalty surcharge. If the Health Insurance Act's drug price cut and the Fair Trade Act penalty are not in place of the suspension of rebate sales, shouldn't the imposition of the substitute penalty for the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act be viewed as a legitimate and legitimate punishment rather than an overlapping or excessive regulation?
