Few matters command national attention as allegations of corruption or fraud. But there are other subjects that frequently raise widespread concern. One of these is surely that over the exorbitant prices of a range of medicines. Public outrage rises every time people report instances of retailers quoting prices that are twice, if not three times, those charged in Britain, Italy and elsewhere. Yet, the situation has changed little since the latest controversy erupted when, in the Budget for this financial year, the government announced plans for the mandatory control of medicine prices.
The latest development over the issue comes from Brussels where the European Commission turned down a call made by a Labour MEP, John Attard Montalto, for an investigation into what he called the inexplicably high prices of medicines in Malta. In the Commission's view, the matter falls within the competence of the Maltese authorities. Its vice-president, Antonio Tajani, told the Maltese MEP that the "national authorities are free to set the prices of medicinal products, to influence these prices through national policies, or to leave the regulation of prices to the market forces". He made it clear the government could intervene in the market to make sure consumers were getting a fair deal.
On the basis of this reply, Dr Montalto has now called on the government to launch an official inquiry to find out the reason for the exorbitant prices of medicinal products. When the last controversy over the issue was at its peak, a representative of the importers, distributors and retailers was quoted saying that only a few products of the 2,500 to 3,000 on sale in Malta were marked higher than the average. Yet, according to a government study, on average, Maltese consumers are paying 40 per cent more than the EU average for their medicinal products.
If the figures are correct, the difference is clearly unacceptable, whatever the reasons the trade may bring up for this, and the government is therefore right in threatening the importers and retailers with action unless the trade rectifies the situation. The problem is that abuse has been going on for far too long now and that consumers are beginning to lose faith in the government's ability to check it. It is useless for the trade to pin the blame on a few cowboys. Consumers want to see action being taken to settle the issue once and for all.
What progress has been made in the plans to set up the mechanism for the mandatory control of medicine prices? The trade is likely to mount stiff opposition to any such mechanism but, in the absence of self-discipline and fair play, what alternative does the government have to tackle the problem? At one point, the healthcare business section of the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry said that, if the price monitoring committee that had been set up to ensure fair prices for medicines was working properly, it would have protected the public, importers and distributors. Whose fault is it that it is not working properly?
It would be a step backward if the government were to go back to controlling prices through price orders, and worse if it were to start importing medicines itself. Maybe, as already suggested by this newspaper months ago, the government, or the consumer protection agency could, when this is finally set up, start naming and shaming transgressors first before going ahead with the setting up of the mechanism for the mandatory control of medicine prices.