On the 20th, the so-called "Dr. Now prevention law," an amendment to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, "barely" passed at a plenary session of the National Assembly. Had it fallen short by five yes votes, it would not have cleared the Assembly. (Of 178 lawmakers present, 95 in favor, 34 against, 49 abstentions)
With the amendment's passage, "non-face-to-face medical care brokers" like Dr. Now are added to the grounds for disqualification from obtaining a pharmaceutical wholesaler license going forward. Transactions between pharmaceutical wholesalers and pharmacies that use the platform will be restricted.
Lee So-young of the Democratic Party of Korea took the floor for an "against debate" that day and raised her voice. The bill was originally introduced by Kim Yoon, a physician-turned lawmaker from the same party. Given the party's recent mood of processing bills in a single file, it was a rare sight.
Lee appealed for the bill to be voted down on the grounds that ▲ platform wholesaling is not at a level that raises concerns about restricting competition ▲ it bans new services through ex post legislation ▲ it reduces patient welfare.
Lee said, "The side effects (raised by the medical community) are, literally, still only concerns, and we can sufficiently minimize regulation by specifically banning illegal acts," adding, "The Medical Service Act, which will take effect in Dec., bans the acts of non-face-to-face medical care platforms, yet without even trying it, they are trying to impose a blanket ban on the business itself."
Lee went on, "Are we going to create a dark chapter in history again by banning new services through ex post legislation? We talk about inspiring the public's spirit of challenge and being a country good for startups, but if we abolish businesses through ex post legislation, who will stake their life on starting a business in Korea?"
Meanwhile, patients who received non-face-to-face medical care struggled even after getting a doctor's prescription because they could not get connected to a pharmacy. Unable to check drug quantities, they had to go "pharmacy hopping" in person to obtain their medicine, causing inconvenience. The platform resolved this.
But now non-face-to-face medical care platform companies are banned from directly establishing pharmaceutical wholesalers. The amendment was called the "Dr. Now prevention law" because Dr. Now was the only non-face-to-face medical care platform company that had established a pharmaceutical wholesaler. In the venture community, it is regarded as a "second Tada law" in that it is ex post regulatory legislation.
Over this, positions have sharply diverged between "the medical community and the Ministry of Health and Welfare vs. the venture community and the Ministry of SMEs and Startups." The two sides clashed over it for nearly a year.
The medical community is concerned that if non-face-to-face medical care platforms engage in wholesaling, unfair practices such as new forms of rebates could occur.
Startups, on the other hand, oppose on the grounds that legislatively blocking a legally launched business in its entirety could damage the startup ecosystem. The Office for Government Policy Coordination even stepped in to narrow the gap between the two groups, and the amendment's passage that day effectively brought the matter to a close.
No votes were cast by lawmakers Lee So-young and Kim Yong-man. There were 24 abstentions, including lawmakers Kwon Hyang-yeop, Kim Yong-min, Kim Woo-young, Kim Tae-nyeon, Kim Han-kyu, Min Hong-chul and Park Hong-bae.
Kim Han-kyu, co-head of the National Assembly startup study group "Unicorn Farm" and senior deputy floor leader for policy, also wrote on Facebook after the bill passed, "Because it was a bill handled by bipartisan agreement at the Health and Welfare Committee, it was hard to block its passage at the plenary session."
Kim added, "Rather than the easy way of banning a business entirely, we should legislate to specifically ban illegal acts, even if it is harder."
By contrast, Kim Yoon, the bill's sponsor, wrote on Facebook the day before, "This is by no means a law to block non-face-to-face medical care. It is to prevent 'new forms of rebates' that can arise when a non-face-to-face medical care platform goes beyond simple brokerage and has interests in the sale and distribution of pharmaceuticals," adding, "If we leave this as is and harm arises in the market and public health is threatened, then who will take responsibility?"