Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issue of "dual pricing" in the healthcare system, where retail pharmacies charge higher prices for the same medication to patients using health insurance compared to those paying cash, undermining trust in the insurance system [1][6]. Group 1: Regulatory Response - The National Healthcare Security Administration issued a notification to strengthen monitoring and handling of "dual pricing" practices in retail pharmacies, emphasizing that such discriminatory pricing violates service agreements [1][9]. - The notification proposes a multi-faceted approach combining technical monitoring, law enforcement, and public supervision to address the issue effectively [1][6]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - The phenomenon of "dual pricing" has evolved from simple price discrepancies to more complex hidden operations, influenced by regulatory loopholes and cost pressures faced by pharmacies [2][3]. - Common violations include charging higher prices for the same medication under insurance, splitting medication packages to increase costs, and requiring membership for discounted pricing [3][4]. Group 3: Impact on Patients and Trust - The "dual pricing" issue particularly affects patients with chronic illnesses, increasing their medication costs and leading to hidden losses in the healthcare fund [6][10]. - Patients often lack awareness of the price differences due to insufficient price transparency in pharmacies, with only about 30% of pharmacies displaying both insurance and cash prices [3][9]. Group 4: Enforcement and Monitoring - The notification outlines strict penalties for pharmacies violating pricing agreements, including potential suspension of insurance payments and public exposure of non-compliant pharmacies [9][10]. - A price comparison app has been introduced in 29 provinces to help patients compare medication prices and avoid overpaying due to information asymmetry [9][10]. Group 5: Financial Considerations for Pharmacies - Pharmacies face significant financial pressures due to delayed reimbursements from insurance, which can take one to two months, leading them to adopt "dual pricing" as a coping mechanism [3][10]. - Initiatives to shorten reimbursement cycles have shown a reduction in "dual pricing" occurrences, indicating that financial incentives can help align pharmacy practices with regulatory expectations [10].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issue of "dual pricing" in retail pharmacies, where the same medication is sold at a higher price to patients using health insurance compared to those paying in cash, leading to distrust in the health insurance system [1][5]. Group 1: Regulatory Response - The National Healthcare Security Administration issued a notification to strengthen monitoring and handling of "dual pricing" practices in retail pharmacies, emphasizing that such discriminatory pricing violates service agreements [1][8]. - The notification proposes a multi-faceted approach involving technical monitoring, law enforcement, and public supervision to address the issue effectively [1][5]. Group 2: Pricing Practices - Common practices include "same drug dual pricing," where the insurance price is higher than the cash price, and "specification splitting," where purchasing individual units costs more than buying a full box [3][4]. - Some pharmacies require patients to join membership programs or purchase specific products to access the same pricing as cash customers, further complicating the pricing structure [3][4]. Group 3: Impact on Patients and Pharmacies - The "dual pricing" phenomenon particularly affects patients with chronic diseases, increasing their medication costs and leading to hidden losses in health insurance funds [5][10]. - Pharmacies face financial pressures due to delayed reimbursements from health insurance, which can take one to two months, leading them to adopt these pricing strategies to maintain cash flow [3][9]. Group 4: Monitoring and Enforcement - The notification mandates pharmacies to conduct self-inspections and encourages public reporting of violations, with a focus on increasing the cost of non-compliance through a tiered penalty system [8][9]. - A pilot program in Chengdu showed a 42% decrease in "dual pricing" incidents after reducing the reimbursement cycle from 45 days to 20 days, indicating the effectiveness of timely payments [9].

Core Viewpoint - The National Medical Insurance Administration (NMI) is addressing the issue of "dual pricing" in designated retail pharmacies, where the same medication is sold at a higher price to insured patients compared to uninsured patients, indicating a violation of regulations and potential exploitation of the medical insurance fund [1][2][5]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - The NMI has issued a notification to enhance monitoring of "dual pricing" practices in designated pharmacies, emphasizing the need for data screening and on-site verification [1][3]. - The notification categorizes "dual pricing" as a violation of the use of medical insurance funds, urging local medical insurance departments to recognize the infringement of insured individuals' rights and the negative impact on the insurance fund [2][4]. - Local medical insurance departments are required to include "dual pricing" behavior in their key monitoring items and to conduct thorough investigations based on pricing discrepancies and public complaints [3][4]. Group 2: Consumer Impact - Reports from various regions indicate that consumers are increasingly avoiding physical pharmacies due to the "dual pricing" issue, which has been highlighted by media coverage [2][5]. - The phenomenon of "dual pricing" is not isolated, with multiple consumers in cities like Chongqing and Wuhan reporting significant price differences when using insurance versus cash payments [2][5]. Group 3: Expert Insights - Experts suggest that the "dual pricing" issue arises partly from delayed reimbursements from the insurance system, leading pharmacies to pass costs onto consumers [5][6]. - The practice of "dual pricing" is seen as a violation of both the Medical Insurance Service Agreement and various laws, including the Price Law and Social Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China [6][7]. - Experts emphasize that while regulatory oversight is challenging due to the complexity of the retail drug market, the NMI's recent measures are a step towards addressing these issues effectively [7][8]. Group 4: Future Measures - The NMI plans to implement a smart regulatory system to recover losses from the insurance fund and will conduct regular analyses of suspicious data to combat fraudulent practices [8]. - Designated pharmacies will be subject to flying inspections, and any violations will be dealt with according to the law, ensuring accountability and compliance [8].