Lucknow – A fresh audit carried out by the Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug Administration (FSDA) has exposed a pronounced mismatch between what hospitals actually pay for medicines and the maximum retail prices (MRP) printed on the packs. In a number of cases, the MRP is dozens of times higher than the price settled by hospital pharmacies.

Scope of the study

The investigation analysed procurement records from 214 pharmacy units across medical colleges and private hospitals. Out of the 130 medicines examined, 36 displayed an MRP that was more than ten‑fold their purchase price, with the most extreme example reaching roughly 67 times the cost paid by the hospital.

Polymyxin‑B injection shows the widest gap

The biggest disparity involved a Polymyxin‑B injection, a drug used for severe bacterial infections. The hospital bought the vial for ₹74.09, yet the label bears an MRP of ₹4,980.94 – a difference of almost 67 ×.

Significant variations among essential injectables

Other high‑impact injectables also exhibited large gaps. A medication for advanced liver disease was procured at about ₹56 but carried an MRP of ₹3,050. Similar mismatches were observed for drugs targeting serious bacterial and fungal infections.

Meropenem and Caspofungin price differentials

Meropenem 1 g, a cornerstone for tough bacterial infections, showed MRPs ranging from roughly 5.3 to 10 times the purchase cost, depending on the brand.

Caspofungin 70 mg, an antifungal agent, displayed the most pronounced spread within the group. One formulation cost the hospital ₹800 but was labelled at ₹21,230 (about 26.5 ×). Another batch was bought for ₹897.75 and marked at ₹19,892.

Oncology and life‑saving medicines under the microscope

The audit also flagged several cancer‑related and other life‑saving drugs with inflated MRPs. While high printed prices can give manufacturers room for discounts, the findings raise questions about how these figures are set and communicated to patients.

Medical equipment mirrors the trend

The price‑inflation pattern was not limited to pharmaceuticals. A three‑way stopcock was purchased for just ₹6.40 yet bore an MRP of ₹163. Another piece of equipment cost the hospital ₹20.95 but displayed a retail label of ₹500.

Restricted availability limits patient bargaining power

When a drug is stocked only in a single hospital pharmacy—or is scarce in the open market—patients have little leverage to compare prices. Consequently, they may be forced to accept the inflated hospital‑pharmacy rate, which can drive up the overall cost of treatment.

Implications for transparency and regulation

The FSDA’s findings have amplified calls for greater pricing transparency, tighter procurement oversight, and periodic monitoring of MRPs for both medicines and medical consumables. A clearer view of the link between purchase costs and retail prices could help curb excessive mark‑ups and protect patients from undue financial strain.