Provisional finding in hydrocortisone competition case

Provisional finding in hydrocortisone competition case

There’s been a provisional finding by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the important hydrocortisone competition case, with a Statement of Objections issued.

In the coming weeks, the CMA expect written and oral representations to be made following the Statement of Objections that’s been issued.

The provisional findings of the CMA are incredibly worrying. It all comes down whether the two companies at the heart of the investigation colluded in order to charge higher prices and make bigger profits; all at the expense of our NHS, and our hard-earned tax money.

Latest findings in the hydrocortisone competition case

The latest provisional findings in the hydrocortisone competition case are damning. Auden Mckenzie (the only supplier of hydrocortisone tablets in the UK) and Waymade (their rival) are accused of breaking important competition laws between July 2011 and August 2015.

Here’s what we know so far about the provisional findings and the allegations that have been made:

• Charges to the NHS for hydrocortisone drugs reportedly rose from £46.00 per packet to £90.00 per packet of 30 tablets. This increased the annual cost to the NHS from £1.7m to £3.7m;
• In May 2011, Waymade was reportedly ready to enter the market for 20mg hydrocortisone tablets. However, they didn’t enter the market until July 2015. It’s alleged that they froze their stock and cut a deal with Auden Mckenzie and allegedly received monthly payments to delay their entry to the market and compete;
• Waymade also obtained a license to sell 10mg tablets, but in exchange for not entering the market, Auden Mckenzie is accused of lowering their charge to Waymade from the market rate of £32.00 per pack to just £1.00.

Devastating allegations in the hydrocortisone competition case

The allegations the CMA has made in the hydrocortisone competition case are simply devastating. We’re talking about a case where the NHS may have been denied a choice of supplier and therefore denied the benefit of lower prices through healthy competition.

Not only that, but we’re talking about life-saving medication that’s used to treat deadly Addison’s Disease

At this stage, these are provisional findings and allegations. However, based on the information so far, the evidence appears to be incredibly damning that an agreement was in place to restrict competition for the companies to profit at the expense of the NHS. That’s life-saving drugs charged at higher rates to allegedly line the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.

What happens next?

If the allegations transpire to be true, the punishments for both companies ought to be incredibly severe. Quite frankly, this would be a sickening abuse of our NHS, and of taxpayers’ money.

We’ll continue to keep a very close eye on this one.