New Delhi: In a sweeping order examining pricing practices at private super-speciality hospitals in Delhi-NCR, Competition Commission of India (CCI) has raised concerns over how admitted patients are routed towards in-house pharmacies, diagnostics and consumables. The regulator said patients often become “locked-in” once admitted to the facility.The order, related to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, is part of a wider probe involving 12 major private hospitals. The regulator examined whether hospitals compel patients to buy medicines, devices and diagnostic services only from hospital-linked facilities.Reacting to the order, Dr (prof) DS Rana, chairman of the board of trustees at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, said: “We have got the order and are studying it. It is a welcome step by CCI. We will get back after studying the order.” The case originated from a 2015 complaint alleging inflated syringe pricing in a hospital. During the probe, the director-general widened it to cover other hospitals.The commission said hospitals often create a “locked-in” effect for patients by encouraging or effectively restricting them to in-house pharmacies and diagnostic tests. In-patients, “almost always, use a hospital’s in-house pharmacy and laboratories,” it said.The investigation found substantial mark-ups in several diagnostic tests at Sir Ganga Ram between 2015 and 2018 when compared with diagnostic chains. Liver function tests, renal biochemical profiles, reticulocyte counts and blood culture tests were priced significantly higher than average rates in some years under review.The commission also examined pricing of imaging tests. Some procedures were priced over 50% higher than diagnostic centres.However, CCI said the methodology used was inadequate as procurement cost alone cannot be used to calculate excessive profit. CCI also said there was no finding that the prices had exceeded the MRP. Sir Ganga Ram told CCI that it functions as a charitable trust and uses revenue from paying patients to subsidise treatment for the needy.The commission closed proceedings, saying the evidence did not conclusively establish abuse of the hospital’s dominant position.
