A personal take on the new dispensing rule proposal
So, the other day I was standing in the tiny pharmacy near my house in Bangalore, waiting for my regular antihistamine tablets. The pharmacist, Ramesh, was about to hand me a strip of ten tablets, even though the doctor had prescribed only five. I told him, "Sir, can I just get five?" He shook his head and said, "Sorry, brother, we can’t split the strip. The rules say we have to sell the whole pack." That little interaction made me wonder – why can’t we just get exactly what the doctor writes?
Turns out, I’m not the only one thinking this. Apparently the central government is now seriously looking at a proposal that would make pharmacies dispense medicines in the precise numbers doctors write in the prescription. Imagine buying only five tablets when the prescription says five, instead of being forced to buy ten or fifteen. This idea has been floating around for a while, but it finally got a push after a public grievance was lodged pointing out how pharmacies routinely refuse to cut or dispense loose strips. The Drug Consultative Committee, or DCC, took up the matter in its latest meeting.
What struck me was how quickly the DCC moved. In the minutes that have been seen by the media, the committee noted that it had “deliberated the matter and recommended to refer the matter to the sub‑committee already constituted in the 66th meeting of DCC dated 17.06.2025 to examine the matters of labelling.” In plain words, they decided to send the issue to a smaller group that will look into the labelling side of things. I guess they think that if we can print batch numbers and expiry dates on each tablet, cutting strips won’t be such a big safety worry.
Now, patient groups are cheering. For many of us, buying an entire strip means spending extra money we don’t need – especially for medicines that are pricey, like some chronic disease drugs. If the rule passes, it could really ease that burden.
But there’s a big elephant in the room – India’s biggest chemists’ lobby, the All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD). They’ve put up a strong red flag. In a letter addressed to Dr Rajeev Singh Raghuvanshi, the Drugs Controller General of India, they asked the government to hit the pause button and talk to all the stakeholders before moving ahead.
What the AIOCD actually wrote
Reading the AIOCD’s letter felt a bit like hearing an older brother warning you about the pitfalls of a new gadget. The lobby openly admitted that the intent behind the proposal – to stop patients from buying excess medicines – is understandable. Yet, they warned that without careful planning, the rule could backfire.
The letter, which has been quoted in the press, boiled down the concerns into three big buckets: financial losses for chemists, drug‑safety risks, and the lack of prior consultation with the trade bodies. Let me break down each point, because these are real issues that affect the little shop down the lane and, eventually, the patients like you and me.
First up, the money side. The AIOCD argued that dispensing loose tablets would inevitably lead to unsold partial strips that can’t be returned to the stockists or manufacturers. "These cut strips cannot be returned to stockists or manufacturers, leading to direct financial loss for chemists," they wrote. Imagine a pharmacy that, after cutting a few strips for different prescriptions, ends up with a pile of half‑used packs. Those can’t be sold again, and the profit margin on each medicine is already set by the government. So, the chemist would be eating the loss.
Second, the safety dimension. This one hits close to home because we all worry about our medicines being genuine and safe. The AIOCD flagged that cutting strips often destroys critical information printed on the packaging – batch numbers, expiry dates, even the unique identifiers that help trace a drug in case of a recall. "One of the most critical concerns is related to drug safety and traceability: cutting strips often results in loss of batch number and expiry date visibility," they warned. If we lose that data, how do we know which batch was recalled? How does a patient prove the medicine’s origin? The risk of legal liability for the chemist also shoots up.
Third, the process angle. The lobby was blunt: "To the best of our knowledge, such a significant operational change has not been discussed in detail with trade bodies like the AIOCD prior to this proposal." They argued that since chemists are the ones who will have to implement the rule, their voices must be heard. Otherwise, we risk a top‑down policy that looks good on paper but fails in practice.
The alternative the chemists are proposing
What I found interesting is that the AIOCD didn’t just slam the proposal; they offered a constructive six‑point framework. It’s like a friend suggesting a better route when you’re stuck in a traffic jam.
1. Variable pack sizes: They want pharmaceutical companies to manufacture medicines in different pack sizes that match common prescription durations – say, five‑tablet packs for a five‑day course, ten‑tablet packs for ten days, and so on.
2. Printing essential info on each tablet or blister: Instead of relying on the outer strip for batch numbers and expiry dates, they propose that every individual tablet or blister segment carry that data. That would solve the traceability problem if someone does cut a strip.
3. Return and compensation mechanism: If a pharmacy ends up with unsold half strips, there should be a system where manufacturers or distributors compensate the chemist, so the financial hit is cushioned.
4. Revising trade margins: Since the current margins are fixed, any extra loss due to cutting strips should be balanced by adjusting those margins, ensuring chemists stay viable.
5. Voluntary dispensing: The letter says that chemists shouldn’t be forced to dispense loose medicines "Suo Moto" – they should be allowed to do it where feasible, not made mandatory across the board.
6. Stakeholder consultation: Finally, they stress that any policy must be rolled out only after thorough discussion with bodies like the AIOCD, so ground‑level challenges are incorporated.
These suggestions show that the chemist community is not opposed to patient‑friendly policies; they just want a balanced approach that protects their business and ensures safety.
Why this matters to everyday folks like you and me
Let’s bring this back to a typical Indian household. Imagine a mother in a small town in Uttar Pradesh who has to buy medicines for her child’s fever. The doctor writes a prescription for three tablets a day for five days, that’s 15 tablets. If the pharmacy only sells a strip of 20 tablets, she ends up paying for five extra pills she might never use. Over months, that extra cost adds up, especially for families living on a tight budget.
Now, picture the same scenario if the pharmacy cuts a strip and gives her exactly 15 tablets, but the pack’s batch number gets cut off. If later that batch is found to be faulty, the mother won’t be able to prove her child’s medicine came from that batch, and the recall team may not reach out to her. That’s the safety conundrum the AIOCD is flagging.
From the chemist’s perspective, think of the small shop in a bustling market in Kolkata. The owner, who has been running the shop for 20 years, keeps tight margins because the price of each tablet is set by the government. If a single cut strip becomes a loss, that loss multiplies when many customers ask for loose tablets. The shop’s profit could shrink, making it harder to restock popular medicines. That could eventually mean the shop can’t serve the community as efficiently.
So, the debate isn’t just about a rule; it’s about how the entire supply chain – doctors, pharmacists, manufacturers, and patients – interacts. A balanced decision could mean doctors prescribing in a way that aligns with available pack sizes, manufacturers adjusting their packaging, and chemists being reimbursed for the extra handling. That’s what the AIOCD is pushing for.
What’s the next step?
The issue has now been handed over to a sub‑committee of the DCC that will look specifically at labelling‑related concerns. They’ll probably examine whether printing batch numbers on each tablet is technically feasible and cost‑effective. In most cases, it will involve discussions with pharma companies, packaging experts, and maybe even some pilot projects in select pharmacies.
While the sub‑committee works, patient‑advocacy groups are likely to keep pressing for the original idea – making medicines affordable by selling only the required quantity. On the other hand, the pharmacy trade will continue to argue for a more nuanced framework that doesn’t leave them to bear the brunt of the cost.
From where I sit, I hope the final decision will be a middle ground. It would be great if we could get exactly the number of tablets we need without having to buy extra, but not at the cost of losing important safety information or pushing small chemists out of business.
