On December 18, a news about Shanghai Pharmaceutical caused heated discussions in the financial circle. Shanghai Pharmaceutical's wholly-owned subsidiary, (hereinafter referred to as "First Biochemical"), recently received an "Administrative Penalty Decision" from the Shanghai Municipal Regulatory Bureau. The content of this decision is: for the implementation of the unfair sale of polymyxomyx sulfate B for injection, First Biochemical was fined about 46.2 billion yuan.
This penalty is not a small amount for any company, let alone a subsidiary of a large pharmaceutical company. So, what's going on behind the scenes?Let's unravel the story.
First of all, we need to understand that this punishment is based on the provisions of Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The provisions of this paragraph clearly state: "Undertakings with a dominant market position are prohibited from engaging in the following acts of abusing their dominant market position: (1) selling goods at an unfair price or purchasing goods at an unfairly low price. "And the behavior of First Biochemical violates this regulation.
Specifically, the original price of polymyxomyx B sulfate for injection sold by the First Biochemical Institute was as high as 2,303 yuan. However, after an investigation by the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Regulation, the company lowered the drug's ** to 270 yuan. Such a gap is undoubtedly shocking.
So, why is this happening?This involves some deep-seated problems in the pharmaceutical market.
We all know that as a special commodity, drugs are not completely determined by market supply and demand. Rather, it is affected by many factors such as policies, regulations, and production costs. Therefore, the problem of drug ** is actually a very complex problem.
From this incident, we can see that the Shanghai Municipal Regulatory Bureau's supervision of drugs is being strengthened. This is undoubtedly a good thing for protecting the rights and interests of consumers and maintaining a level playing field in the market. But at the same time, it also puts tremendous pressure on pharmaceutical manufacturers. How to ensure profits while complying with relevant laws and regulations has become a major challenge for them.
For Shanghai Pharmaceutical, this incident is undoubtedly a major blow. However, it is also a cautionary tale. That is, no matter how large the scale of the enterprise, the constraints of laws and regulations cannot be ignored. Otherwise, it could be costly.
Of course, that's only part of the story. Behind this incident, there is more information and details hidden. This information and details may provide us with a deeper perspective on how to understand this incident. For example, why did First Biochemical choose to sell drugs unfairly?How big are their profit margins?How did the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Supervision discover and deal with this problem?The answers to these questions may reveal more truths for us.
However, despite our curiosity about these questions, we don't yet have the answers. Because, the story is not over yet. Although the Shanghai Municipal Supervision Bureau has made a decision to impose a penalty, this does not mean that the story has come to an end. On the contrary, it has only just begun.
First of all, for Shanghai Pharmaceutical, how to deal with this punishment is a big problem. They needed to find a solution that would both comply with the law and guarantee the company's profits. This is undoubtedly a difficult task. And for consumers, they will also pay close attention to the development of this matter. Because what they want to see is that drugs** can be more fair and reasonable, rather than being manipulated by certain companies.
Secondly, for the Shanghai Municipal Supervision Bureau, they also need to conduct in-depth reflection and summary of this incident. They need to identify their own deficiencies in the regulatory process in order to better perform their responsibilities in the future. At the same time, they also need to think about how to prevent similar things from happening again. Because only in this way can we truly protect the rights and interests of consumers and maintain a level playing field in the market.
Finally, for society as a whole, this event also provides an opportunity for reflection. We need to ask ourselves: how exactly did our medicines come to be?In this process, are the interests of consumers fully protected?Are our regulators able to play their role effectively?It is only through in-depth thinking and discussion that we can find ways and paths to solve these problems.
Overall, although this incident has raised a lot of controversy and questions, it also provides us with an opportunity to gain an in-depth understanding of the pharmaceutical market and reflect on our regulatory system. We look forward to the subsequent development of this story, and look forward to it bringing us more inspiration and thinking.