India is preparing to slash the retail prices of 543 brands of anti-cancer medicines by up to 90 percent, a move that exposes a staggering gap between what pharmaceutical companies charge and the actual cost of production. Starting November 9, 2026, patients will see revised Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) following a regulatory crackdown on excessive trade margins.
For years, the distance between the price a retailer pays for a drug and the price a patient pays at the pharmacy has been a chasm.
The Gap Between Cost and Survival
According to data released by the government, some of the steepest cuts apply to generic and biosimilar versions of critical drugs. For example, one brand of Palbociclib, used to treat breast cancer, saw its price plummet from approximately ₹40,421 to just ₹2,720 per pack—a 93 percent drop. Similarly, Thiotepa vials dropped from ₹80,072 to ₹7,150.
Jan Swasthya Abhiyan India (JSA India) pointed out that such drastic reductions raise serious questions about the pricing practices of major Indian generic manufacturers who offered substantial trade margins while patients faced unaffordable bills.

A Judicial Warning Against ‘Daylight Robbery’
This regulatory pivot didn’t happen in a vacuum. It followed a scathing intervention by the Supreme Court of India. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta lambasted the government and pharma companies for what they described as “broad daylight dacoity” and “pure extortion.”
The Court was particularly incensed by the government’s reluctance to bring more medicines under strict price control. Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the logic of allowing manufacturers to set an initial MRP “up to the moon” and then limiting annual increases to 10 percent, arguing that such a framework does nothing to protect the poorest citizens. The Court highlighted a jarring disparity where some medicines sold in government pharmacies for ₹6 had an MRP of ₹270.
In response to this pressure, the NPPA issued a directive on October 17 implementing Trade Margin Rationalisation (TMR) for 137 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs. The goal was to cap trade margins at 30 percent, forcing companies to recalculate their MRPs based on the average price charged to distributors in March 2026.
Patented Therapies See Limited Price Relief
While the cuts for generics are massive, the relief for those on the newest, patented therapies is far more limited. Several expensive, single-brand drugs saw no price change at all. Keytruda (pembrolizumab), for instance, remains priced at ₹2,16,500. Other high-cost therapies like nivolumab and osimertinib also remained unchanged.
JSA India argues that the current TMR policy is flawed because it allows a 42.8% markup over the Price to Stockist (PTS), which they claim still legitimizes excessive margins in a supply chain that often involves only one or two intermediaries.
There is also an economic counter-argument to blanket price caps. Dr. Sujeet Ranjan, CEO of United Way, suggests that not every difference between the initial sale price and the final retail price is “profiteering.” He argues that a rigid, one-size-fits-all formula could discourage the private investment needed to build the next generation of healthcare infrastructure and research.

Sandeep Nayak, chairman of oncology at MACS-Renova Oncology Institute, echoed this, stating that while price control is positive, life-saving drugs must remain viable to manufacture and sell.
NPPA Awaits Revised Prices by November 9
The current list of 543 brands is not yet exhaustive. Of the 137 drugs targeted by the NPPA, 110 have appeared in the filings so far. The government has made it clear that companies failing to submit their revised prices will be treated as having made no reduction. The NPPA has committed to updating its price portal dynamically as more manufacturers file their data.
The Supreme Court has reserved its order in the broader case concerning medicine price regulation, leaving the industry and the government in a state of cautious anticipation. For now, the focus remains on the November 9 deadline, when the pharmacy counter will reflect the regulator’s attempt to curb excessive profiteering.