KUALA LUMPUR – The High Court has granted a stay of enforcement against a government order requiring private healthcare facilities and community pharmacies to display the retail prices of medicines.
The ruling preserves the status quo for private healthcare providers until the disposal of a judicial review application, effectively blocking the government’s ability to penalize facilities for failing to comply with the price display mandate.
Justice Alice Loke issued the decision during a virtual hearing on May 21, citing the risk of irreparable harm to the applicants if the stay were denied.
“I have taken into consideration the rights of the parties, and the consequences to parties if a stay is not granted,” Justice Loke said. “If a stay is not granted, the applicants’ rights would be affected. Put another way, irreparable harm would be caused given that the Impugned Order attracts penal consequences. This is the most compelling reason, apart from the other reasons that were advanced, where I am also persuaded to agree with the applicants.”
Dispute Over Regulatory Authority
The legal challenge centers on the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025. Gazetted by Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Armizan Mohd Ali, the order came into effect on May 1, 2025.
The order was issued under Section 10 of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 (Act 723), a statute designed primarily to regulate prices and prevent profiteering in trade and consumer transactions.
The Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), among other applicants, argues that while price transparency is necessary for patient rights, Act 723 is the incorrect legal instrument for regulating medical practice and professional conduct in healthcare settings.
“We wish to be clear: MMA has never been against medicine price transparency. We support it. Patients have every right to know what they are paying for,” said MMA president Dr R. Arasu in a statement, emphasising that the dispute is about legal powers and regulatory architecture rather than the principle of disclosure.
Dr Arasu argued that existing laws already provide the necessary framework for transparency and oversight in private healthcare:
- Act 586 and its 2006 Regulations: The Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586) and its regulations have governed patient rights, obligations on charges, disclosure of fees and grievance mechanisms in private healthcare for nearly 20 years, under the purview of the Ministry of Health.
- Regulatory Intent and Overlap: The MMA contends that because a sector-specific legal framework was already in place, the government did not need to utilize Act 723 to achieve its policy goals on medicine price transparency, and that doing so risks blurring the boundary between consumer law and health professional regulation.
Health policy experts note that the outcome of the case could clarify which ministry – Domestic Trade or Health – should take the lead when price controls intersect with clinical practice and patient care.
Scope of the Legal Challenge
The opposition to the order is broad, involving multiple healthcare entities and signalling organised pushback from the private health sector. Two separate lawsuits were filed against the government:
- First Suit: Filed by seven medical and dental groups representing practitioners in private clinics and specialist practices.
- Second Suit: Filed by the Private Medical Practitioners Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (PMPASKL) and Medipulse Healthcare Sdn Bhd, reflecting both association-level and corporate concerns over compliance costs and potential sanctions.
While the order was gazetted by the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN), the underlying price transparency policy originated from the Ministry of Health (MOH), which has for several years been under public pressure to address rising out-of-pocket costs and opaque billing in the private healthcare system.
The High Court’s intervention ensures that the government cannot begin enforcement of the rule for now. Putrajaya had previously planned to commence enforcement on January 1, 2026, following a grace period to allow clinics and pharmacies to adjust their systems and displays.
For patients, the stay means that any uniform, nationwide requirement to publish standardised medicine prices at private facilities will be delayed at least until the court decides on the substantive legality of the order. For policymakers, it temporarily halts a flagship transparency initiative that was intended to signal tougher action on profiteering and price variation.
Judicial Trend for Ministry of Health
The ruling represents a second legal defeat for the government, and specifically the Ministry of Health, within a single week, underlining heightened judicial scrutiny of how the executive deploys its regulatory powers in health-related matters.
On May 15, the High Court ruled in favor of anti-tobacco groups in a separate judicial review. That case challenged a 2023 order by the health minister which removed liquid nicotine from the Poisons List, a move critics said opened the door to widespread vape sales without adequate safeguards.
Legal observers say the two cases, while involving different statutes and policy areas, both test the limits of ministerial discretion in altering long-standing regulatory regimes – from poison scheduling to price controls – without full legislative debate.
Justice Loke has directed an early hearing for the substantive judicial review regarding the medicine price display order. According to K. Shanmuga, one of the applicants’ lawyers, case management is scheduled for June 10, with both sides expected to set out how far consumer protection laws can be used to reshape the governance of private healthcare.