Control the market
Controlled the domestic sales market of calcium gluconate raw materials for injection by means of underwriting sales, mass purchases or requiring manufacturers not to sell externally
Raise prices
After controlling the market, the three companies increased their prices internally, and increased their sales prices through internal circulation of tickets.
High price sale
Abuse of market dominance, not only selling goods at unfairly high prices, but also attaching unreasonable trading conditions
"This is an ordinary drug, because the raw materials are monopolized, and it is listed as a shortage drug by many provinces and cities. You make the price of the preparation high, and the data is good, but who will pay for this order? It is a large number. The common people, especially the sick people." Recently, the State Administration for Market Regulation said as a defendant in court.
A calcium gluconate injection has risen from seven or eight anise to 12 yuan and 8 yuan in just a few years.
At the same time, the raw material for the production of calcium gluconate injection rose from 40 yuan/kg in 2014 to 2,184 yuan/kg in 2017, a 54.6 times increase in price!
Behind the frantically rising prices, the three companies abused their dominant market position, increasing the prices of raw materials and artificially raising them.
In April this year, the State Administration for Market Regulation imposed penalties on these three companies in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law and issued a 300 million yuan fine.
Among them, a company that was punished brought a lawsuit to the State Administration for Market Supervision, requesting that the relevant punishment be revoked. The case opened on the 15th of this month.
The Red Star Capital Bureau noted that, after the elimination of the monopoly, seven places including Guangxi, Zhejiang, Gansu, Shaanxi, Guizhou, Hubei and Jiangsu have issued notices to urge relevant production companies to reduce prices.
medical personnel:
One rose from seven or eight anise to nearly 13 yuan
Calcium gluconate injection (10ml:1g) is a commonly used medicine and it is listed in the "National Essential Medicine List".
Public data shows that the sales volume of calcium gluconate injection in 2017 was 222 million.
A medical staff introduced to the Red Star Capital Bureau that this drug is mainly used for anti-allergic clinically, and it can also be used when the uterus of the mother is not contracted.
However, in recent years, the price of calcium gluconate injection has repeatedly increased.
The above-mentioned person told the Red Star Capital Bureau that the price of calcium gluconate injections in their hospitals has risen from seven or eight anise per stick to 12 yuan and 8 jiao per stick in recent years, but in which year the price rose Can not remember.
Calculated at the price stated by the person, calcium gluconate injection has increased by about 16 times in just a few years.
In addition, according to public data from Meinenet, the winning unit price (median value) of calcium gluconate injection (10ml:1g) in 2015 was 1.49 yuan, 1.9 yuan in 2016, 2 yuan in 2017, and 13 yuan in 2018. In 2019 and 2020, it will be 18 yuan and 14.85 yuan respectively.
So, why have the market and price of calcium gluconate injection changed so much in just a few years?
Let us rewind time to August 2015.
Survey by the State Administration for Market Regulation
Control and monopoly
The price of raw materials has been raised from 40 yuan/kg to 2184 yuan/kg
According to a survey conducted by the State Administration for Market Regulation, from August 2015 to December 2017, three companies actually controlled the domestic market for calcium gluconate raw materials for injection.
These three companies are Shandong Kanghui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Weifang Puyunhui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Weifang Taiyangshen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Kanghui Company", "Pyunhui Company" and "Helioshen Company").
According to an investigation conducted by the State Administration of Market Supervision, although the three companies are independent civil entities, Kanghui Company actually controls Puyunhui Company and Helios Company, and the three have common business will and behavior.
These three companies controlled the domestic market for calcium gluconate raw materials for injection (hereinafter referred to as "raw materials") through underwriting sales, large-scale purchases, or requiring manufacturers not to sell externally.
According to a survey conducted by the State Administration of Market Supervision, in August-December 2015, 2016, and 2017, Kanghui's market share in the domestic API sales market was 94%, 91%, and 87%, respectively.
Before they controlled the domestic market, in 2014, the market price of the API was about 40 yuan/kg.
After they took control of the market, the three companies increased their prices internally and circulated the tickets internally to increase sales prices.
According to a survey conducted by the State Administration of Market Supervision, in 2017, Kanghui Company and other companies purchased raw materials at a price of around 80 yuan/kg, but they increased their prices internally, and their external sales prices were mostly 760 yuan/kg-2184 yuan/kg. The price increase ranges from 9.5 times to 27.3 times.
Compared with the market price in 2014, the market price of APIs has increased from 19 to 54.6 times.
After mastering the upstream APIs, the downstream preparation manufacturers have also become "puppets" manipulated by Kanghui Company and others.
The State Administration for Market Regulation stated in the administrative penalty decision that the three companies abused their dominant market position by not only selling unfairly high prices, but also adding unreasonable trading conditions.
Since they were the only ones on the market that were able to supply APIs stably at the time, if they did not accept their requirements, preparation manufacturers would not be able to purchase APIs and would suspend production and stocks. If they were unable to supply them normally, they might be included in the "blacklist" by the recruitment platform. ", can only accept its request.
According to reports, after receiving the report, the State Administration for Market Regulation conducted an investigation.
During the investigation, the relevant personnel of Kanghui Company and Puyunhui Company did not cooperate with the investigation, not only obstructing law enforcement officials from obtaining information, but also falsely claiming that the relevant information was flooded or lost due to a traffic accident.
On April 14 this year, the State Administration for Market Regulation issued an administrative penalty decision, which imposed an administrative penalty decision on the illegal activities of the three companies abusing market dominance. A total of 121 million yuan of illegal income from the three companies was confiscated and a fine of 205 million yuan was imposed. yuan.
State Administration for Market Regulation sued
Focus of trial
Whether Puyunhui is actually controlled by Kanghui and whether it abuses its dominant position
Soon after the penalty decision was made public, Puyunhui Company sued the State Administration of Market Supervision to the court, requesting to revoke the penalty.
In response, the State Administration for Market Regulation requested the rejection of its litigation request.
The case was heard by Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court on December 15 this year.
The Red Star Capital Bureau sorted out the video data of the court trial and found that the focus of both parties mainly focused on: Whether Puyunhui Company is actually controlled by Kanghui Company, the applicable market of the case (whether oral and injection market are differentiated), whether it abuses its dominant position and Whether the punishment is too heavy, etc.
Among them, the plaintiff (Pyunhui Company) claimed that the company's main management staff had worked in Kanghui Company and rented its warehouse soon after the company was newly established. Therefore, the two parties had more contact with each other, but it did not mean that Puyunhui Company was affected. Controlled by Kanghui Company.
The defendant (State Administration of Market Supervision) submitted a number of evidences, including the records of Puyunhui’s staff receiving benefits from Kanghui Company. The inscription shows that Puyunhui is a document of Kanghui’s “second business department” and Puyunhui’s The leader has an office in Kanghui and attends its annual meeting.
Among them, one key piece of evidence is: in the office of Lu Guohua, the legal representative of Puyunhui, a sticky note was found with a written record stating that “the inspection by the Development and Reform Commission last week sounded the alarm” and “the funds should not be related to Kang Benefit company association".
The defendant explained in court that earlier, other anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies of the country had inspected the plaintiff and others, and they were subjectively deliberately evading anti-monopoly investigations.
When the issue of whether the punishment was too heavy was discussed in the trial, the defendant believed that it was mainly considered from the three aspects of time, nature and degree. It lasted for more than 2 years, and the sales price increased by 19 times to 54.6 times, and subjectively Suspected of evading antitrust investigations.
"Calcium gluconate (injection) is an ordinary drug, because the raw material is monopolized, and it is listed as a shortage drug by many provinces and cities. Let's check the news." The defendant said in court.
"Just now he (referring to the plaintiff) actually made it very clear that he was raising the price for commercial purposes, but he didn't say one thing. You made the preparation price higher and the data is good. But who will buy this order? A large number of people, especially people who are sick." The defendant said.
At present, the case is in adjournment and the results have not yet been announced.
Chengdu Commercial Daily-Red Star News reporter Yang Peiwen