UPFSDA's statewide inspection reveals a major difference in the MRP of the same drug from the same brand
In the data collected from 214 hospitals, MRPs of institutionally supplied drugs differ by up to thousands of rupees
In many major drugs the difference ranges from a few hundred to thousands of rupees, including drugs used to treat serious diseases
Difference of up to ₹5,940.86 in Tenectaplase, ₹27,390 in Inonza, and ₹3,003 in Albucel
Higher trade margins and unnecessary increases in drug prices directly hit the pockets of patients and ordinary consumers
FSDA initiative for transparency in drug prices: list of 167 drugs shared with the Government of India and NPPA
Lucknow, October 2026 : The investigation by the Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug Administration (FSDA) into transparency in drug prices has brought important facts to light. In an analysis of data collected from the pharmacies of 214 hospitals in the state, different MRPs were recorded for the same company's same-brand drug across different institutional supplies. Among the list of 167 medicines, the difference in many major branded drugs ranges from a few hundred rupees to thousands of rupees. These include expensive drugs and drugs used to treat serious diseases.
Recently, under drug safety, the FSDA inspected the pharmacies of 214 hospitals in the state. During this, data relating to various drugs and medical products was collected. In the comparative study, it was specifically examined what difference there is in the MRP printed on a drug of the same company and same brand when it was supplied to different institutions as institutional supply. The department considers the differences found in the investigation important from the perspective of drug price transparency and patient interest. The list of 167 drugs prepared by the department has also been shared with the Government of India.
*Different MRPs for the same drug became a key point of the investigation*
According to the department, having different MRPs for the same brand and same drug at different establishments points to a serious irregularity in consumer pricing. Under the prescribed system, there is scope for annual revision of prices, but any increase must be kept within a limit of 10 percent. In contrast, a large difference in the MRP of the same product across different institutions indicates that prices are being influenced by market demand and the buyer's needs rather than being fixed on a single uniform standard. The FSDA's investigation found that the different MRPs of the same drug are often influenced by commercial terms settled between pharma companies and healthcare institutions. As a result, higher trade margins and unnecessary increases in drug prices directly affect the pockets of patients and ordinary consumers. Keeping this aspect at the center, the FSDA conducted a comparative study of the MRPs of identical drugs supplied to different institutions during institutional supply.
Difference of up to ₹5,940.86 in Tenectaplase
In the investigation, the MRP of Reliance Life Sciences' Tenecte-Plage 40 mg (Tenecteplase) across different institutional supplies was recorded from ₹43,119.14 to ₹49,060. That is, a difference of up to ₹5,940.86 emerged in the MRP printed on this drug of the same brand. The same company's Human Albumin 20 percent (Albural) has MRPs of ₹7,986, ₹9,749 and ₹10,724 recorded across different institutional supplies. Among these, there is a difference of ₹2,738 between the printed MRPs.
₹3,003 difference in Albucel
Intas's Human Albumin 20 percent (Albucel) was recorded with MRPs of ₹7,986 and ₹10,989 across different institutional supplies. That is, there is a difference of ₹3,003 in the MRP. Similarly, Intas's Bevacizumab 400 mg (Benetas) has MRPs of ₹56,991 and ₹62,690.10 recorded across different institutional supplies. The difference between the two is ₹5,699.10. In Filgrastim 300 mcg (Neukine) too, MRPs of ₹591.37 and ₹1,247 were recorded, that is, a difference of ₹655.63.
*₹27,390 difference in the MRP of Inonza*
The biggest example of MRP difference in the investigation emerged in Pfizer's Inotuzumab Ozogamicin 1 mg (Inonza). Across different institutional supplies, this drug has MRPs of ₹3,02,610 and ₹3,30,000 recorded. That is, the difference between the two is ₹27,390. The MRP is the maximum retail price printed on the pack. In such a situation, the recording of different MRPs for the same company's same-brand drug across different institutional supplies becomes an important issue from the standpoint of transparency in the drug pricing system.
*Different MRPs on several Gufic drugs too*
A difference in MRP was also found across different institutional supplies of several drugs of Gufic Biosciences. The MRP of Colistimethate 4.5 MIU was recorded from ₹8,018.44 to ₹9,702.31, that is, a difference of ₹1,683.87. The MRP of Colistimethate 2 MIU was found from ₹3,195.94 to ₹3,866.16, with a difference of ₹670.22. For Tigecycline 50 mg, MRPs of ₹5,784 and ₹7,110.47 were recorded, while for Caspofungin 70 mg, MRPs of ₹20,350 and ₹21,230 were recorded. Similarly, for Polymyxin B 5 lakh IU, an MRP of approximately ₹3,811 to ₹4,980.94 was recorded across different institutional supplies. In Aztreonam 2 gram (Trezam), ₹1,874.06 and ₹1,999 were recorded, while in Terlipressin injection, MRPs of ₹2,600 and ₹3,050 were recorded.
Differences in several other major drugs too
In the investigation, a difference of ₹250 was recorded in the MRP of Sanofi Pasteur's Menactra vaccine, ₹297 in Bharat Serums' Anti-D 300 mcg, and ₹335 in Biological E's 14-valent pneumococcal vaccine. Meanwhile, a difference of ₹73.33 emerged in Samarth Life Sciences' Octreotide 100 mcg (Actide).
Hospitals will have to declare actual purchase rate and selling rate
To further strengthen transparency in drug prices, the UPFSDA has emphasized a system of pricing disclosure at pharmacies operating on hospital premises at the local level. The department is not fixing the selling rate of drugs or the hospital margin, but is making an effort to bring transparency in the interest of patients. The department's aim is to ensure that hospital pharmacies clearly declare the actual purchase rate of the drug, that is, the PTR (Price to Retailer), and the rate at which the drug is being made available to the patient, that is, the PTC (Price to Consumer). This will allow patients and their attendants to know at what rate the hospital bought the drug and at what rate it is being supplied. This will increase transparency in drug prices and a clear record of purchase and sale rates will be available. Along with this, all retail pharmacies will have to create a public website on which the license number, appointed pharmacist, licensed premises and information related to stock will be displayed. This information will have to be updated every week. For compliance, drug inspectors and concerned officers have been instructed to ensure the necessary arrangements in the pharmacies of their respective areas.
Emphasis on a transparent system in the larger public interest
The center of this entire FSDA initiative is not to fix drug prices, but to make prices transparent. After cases came to light of different MRPs being recorded for the same company's same-brand drug across different institutional supplies, the department has taken up this matter in a systematic manner. Since decisions such as fixing the exact retail price of drugs, determining trade margins in the supply chain, and including drugs used in hospitals in the price-controlled scheduled list are to be taken at the level of the Central Government, the Government of India and the NPPA (National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority) have been requested to take the necessary steps on these issues. Under this, they have been urged to consider developing a scientific and transparent system for fixing the retail price of drugs, determining fair trade margins in the drug supply chain, and including drugs used in hospitals in the price-controlled scheduled list.
