Mumbai [India], September 16: Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has raised concerns over the wide gap between the purchase price and printed MRP of commonly used hospital consumables, saying patients often have little information or choice when these products are used during treatment.
Mundhe highlighted the issue in a recent post and in an interaction with The Indian Express, pointing to the pricing of items such as IV sets, syringes, catheters, nebuliser masks and oxygen masks. According to figures from a Maharashtra FDA study cited by him, an IV infusion set purchased at a trade price of ₹11.05 carried an MRP of ₹325, representing a reported 2,841 per cent markup.
The FDA chief also cited other examples. A syringe purchased for around ₹6.75 was found to have an MRP of ₹57.20, while a catheter bought for about ₹29.41 carried an MRP of ₹310. Mundhe said similar differences were found across several consumables used in inpatient care.
The concern, according to Mundhe, is not simply the difference between procurement prices and MRPs but the lack of transparency faced by patients. Someone admitted to a hospital generally cannot compare the price of an IV set or catheter with alternative products while undergoing treatment. The consumables are often necessary for medical care, leaving patients with limited ability to question the price appearing on their bill.
In a post highlighted by The Indian Express, Mundhe argued that the actual cost of consumables can become difficult for patients to assess because MRPs may be determined earlier in the supply chain by manufacturers and distributors. He described this as an information gap that can directly affect people who are already paying for medical treatment.
The issue also points to a regulatory distinction between medicines and several medical devices or consumables. Mundhe said scheduled medicines are covered by price-control provisions under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, while many hospital consumables do not have comparable direct price controls. He has therefore called for a closer examination of how prices and MRPs are determined for such products.
Mundhe said he has submitted a policy proposal to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) under the Department of Pharmaceuticals. One of the proposals is to consider bringing primary in-hospital devices and consumables under Section 4 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, which could provide a regulatory framework for the large price differences identified by the FDA.
The FDA has also recommended that authorities examine whether there should be clearer guidelines defining the permissible difference between trade procurement prices and declared MRPs. The proposal is aimed at improving transparency and giving regulators a clearer mechanism to examine unusually large price gaps.
The development comes as Maharashtra’s FDA has intensified inspections of pharmaceutical and food establishments. Mundhe told The Indian Express that the department conducted 2,485 inspections of pharmaceutical firms during the previous three months and suspended 230 licences. It also inspected 11,780 pharmacies and medical shops, suspending 2,075 licences and cancelling 394, according to figures cited in the report.
The hospital consumables issue is particularly significant because these products may appear to be relatively inexpensive individually but can accumulate substantially during a hospital stay. IV sets, syringes, cannulas, catheters, masks and other disposable items can be used repeatedly or in combination depending on a patient’s treatment, potentially adding to the overall bill.
For patients and families, the central question now is whether the gap between procurement prices and declared MRPs can be made more transparent and whether stronger price oversight should apply to essential medical consumables. Mundhe’s recommendations have been sent to the relevant central authorities for consideration; any change in national pricing rules would require action through the appropriate regulatory framework.
The FDA’s findings do not by themselves establish that every hospital or supplier charges the same margins, and the cited figures relate to the products and pricing comparisons examined by the Maharashtra FDA. The proposed regulatory changes will determine whether these price differences receive a more formal pricing framework in the future.
