'Platform wholesaler ban law' forum faces backlash over bias

Criticism over biased operation of the forum

Rep. Hankyu Kim says "I could offer a rebuttal to every single point the MOHW make"

Rep. Hankyu Kim of the Democratic Party of Korea (center) hosted an emergency forum titled 'Asking the Venture Industry's Opinions on the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act Amendment' on December 16.

Rep. Hankyu Kim of the Democratic Party of Korea received criticism from the healthcare and medical communities for openly opposing a bill that would prohibit platforms from also serving as pharmaceutical wholesalers. Rep. Kim opposed this bill, which passed the Health and Welfare Committee and theLegislation and Judiciary Committee with agreements reached by both parties, during an emergency National Assembly forum that he hosted.

During the forum, Rep. Kim reportedly voiced strong opposition to the statement from a division head from the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW), the primary department responsible for the proposed amendment to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. Some in the medical community expressed concern that the "host lawmaker appeared to be targeting the official by demanding an immediate change in stance or a revision to the legislative proposal". 

Objections have been raised that the forum was operated with a coercive manner, essentially ordering the ministry to draft an amendment in favor of platform industries and startups for a bill that is already awaiting a final plenary session vote.

During the emergency forum on December 16, Rep. Kim stated, "Today’s seminar was co-hosted by 10 members of 'Unicorn Farm', but if the MOHW does not listen to the opinions [of startups and VCs], I will gather 20 members next time for a seminar. If that is still insufficient, I will gather 30 members for discussion."

On December 17, representatives from the medical community and bipartisan officials from the National Assembly’s Health and Welfare Committee evaluated Rep. Kim's remarks as biased. They noted that holding a division head responsible for follow-up measures regarding a bipartisan agreement that has already cleared the Welfare and Judiciary committees is likely to draw criticisms of partiality.

Medical industry insiders and committee officials argued that the operational direction of the forum, titled "Asking the Venture Industry's Opinion on the Doctor Now Prevention Act," could be perceived as an attempt to intimidate the MOHW administration, which is working to protect public health and the drug distribution ecosystem.

Jun-Hyuk Kang, Director of the Pharmaceutical Policy Division at the MOHW, stated during the event, "The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act amendment is different from the 'Tada Ban Law.' The expression 'Doctor Now Prevention Act' is also incorrect, and it is not a law that hinders innovation." He explained, "If a platform operates a wholesaler, it cannot be free from the incentive to drive the prescription and dispensing of its own distributed medications. This law is designed to prevent such conflicts of interest."

Kang's statement implied that the delay in passing the bill, which has stalled despite clearing committees, must be resolved to prevent telemedicine platforms from abusing the system for private profit.

Immediately after Kang's statement, Rep. Kim continued with remarks that appeared to demand an immediate revision of the bill.

Rep. Kim said, "Just because the MOHW says I shouldn't call it a 'Tada Ban Law' doesn't mean I can't. Because many people see it that way, I call it the second 'Tada Ban Law,' and I believe 'Doctor Now Prevention Act' is an accurate term." He added, "The MOHW seems to question why companies enter the platform wholesale business, but what business a company chooses to conduct should be a matter of corporate freedom."

Rep. Kim continued, "It is unreasonable for the MOHW to judge whether something constitutes innovation. While the ministry wants to separate the dispensing and prescription of drugs from wholesaling, the correct legislative approach would be to regulate specific conduct, such as penalizing a wholesaler or platform that negatively influences a pharmacist’s prescription or forces generic substitution, rather than banning the wholesale business itself." He argued, "It is strange to insist on this amendment just to block a wholesaler that distributes 90 types of drugs, as Doctor Now does."

Rep. Kim further challenged the official, saying, "I could offer a rebuttal to every single point the MOHW makes. I am questioning the procedural legitimacy. I believe the ministry should state its willingness to seek alternatives to the venture industry's opinions. What is most disappointing is that, based on the division head's words today, the MOHW seems to have no intention of changing its position or engaging in further discussion. Is it the official position of the department that no further discussion is possible?"

As these remarks became public, the healthcare community questioned whether the emergency forum was intended solely to pressure the MOHW.

A pharmaceutical industry official noted, "I heard that Rep. Kim openly pressured the ministry for a revision. Why demand a modification from the MOHW for a bill that secured bipartisan agreement and is awaiting a plenary vote? Remarks about gathering 20 or 30 lawmakers if the ministry doesn't comply sound like a threat."

The official added, "The delay in the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act amendment is a matter that could shake the domestic healthcare system and the public health safety net," and added, "Dismissing doctors and pharmacists as focused on protecting their own turf, while framing platforms and startups as the 'weak' party to block the bill, is an act that ignores people’s right to health and life."

The official said, "Despite numerous explanations for the legislation and reports of illegal platform activities during the pilot project, Rep. Kim’s insistence on protecting specific corporate interests through a distorted frame is difficult to understand," and concluded, "This attempt to modify the bill will only increase the burden on the Democratic Party, the government, and the President."