Hydrocortisone tablets competition investigation
First published by Author on October 09, 2019 in the following categories: Healthcare Market Dominance Abuse and tagged with cma | competition law | investigations | market abuse | pricing
Here’s the latest in the hydrocortisone tablets competition investigation that’s being conducted by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
The history of this key study goes way back to October 2017 when the CMA started looking into alleged anti-competitive agreements and alleged abusive conduct. Exactly two years on, a great deal has happened as the CMA looks to ensure that the NHS and patients alike are not being ripped off by vastly wealthy pharmaceutical companies.
As we often say when the investigation involves the healthcare industry, this is a serious and important matter.
Background to the hydrocortisone tablets competition investigation
The hydrocortisone tablets competition investigation was first launched way back in October 2017. Between then and February 2019, when a Statement of Objections was issued, information gathering had taken place.
The Statement of Objections issued earlier this year alleged that Auden Mckenzie and Waymade were in breach of UK and EU competition laws. The basis for the allegations was that anti-competitive arrangements had allegedly been entered into in relation to the supply of hydrocortisone tablets.
This was a serious allegation, especially when we’re talking about a life-saving drug.
Provisional findings
The issuance of the Statement of Objections was for provisional findings that competition law may have been broken.
The hydrocortisone tablets competition investigation appears to have unearthed that Auden Mckenzie has been allegedly abusing their dominant position in the market. They were said to allegedly be making monthly payments to Waymade to stop them entering the market, thus allowing Auden Mckenzie to effectively monopolise the sector.
If the allegations are found to be true then the upshot of this is that the NHS has effectively been deprived of the benefits from healthy competition. Had there have been another competitor in the market, prices can be lowered by two companies competing against each other.
When we already have enough funding problems for our public health service as it is, the idea that pharmaceutical companies could engage in such behaviour to put profits over people is sickening. The investigation remains ongoing, so we can only look at what the CMA has publicised so far. But if there is a final finding that such behaviour has been taking place, fines issued should be substantial to reflect the severity of such a breach.