Private doctors' fee plan may breach Competition Act: MyCC
This comes in response to reports that several associations representing private medical practitioners are looking to introduce new service charges including prescription and registration fees, regulatory compliance charges, and facility usage fees some of which may have already been implemented or are under review.
MyCC president Tan Sri Datuk Seri Idrus Harun said such practices are considered serious violations and are commonly referred to as cartel activities, which are illegal regardless of whether the pricing agreement has been implemented or merely agreed upon.
'These additional charges reportedly include prescription fees, registration fees, regulatory compliance charges, and facility usage fees, which may already be in effect or currently under consideration.
'MyCC stated firmly that any collective decision by associations representing general practitioners (GPs) or private doctors to introduce such charges could be in violation of the Competition Act 2010 (Act 712),' he said in a statement.
Idrus added under Section 4(2)(a) of the Act, private doctors and GPs are regarded as 'enterprises,' and any agreement between enterprises including decisions by associations to fix prices or trading terms may constitute anti-competitive conduct.
'If any association or organisation collectively agrees to introduce new charges, it may be interpreted as a price-fixing arrangement. Even non-binding pricing recommendations could be deemed price-fixing under Section 4 of the Act,' he said.
The Sarawak Private Medical Practitioners' Society (SPMPS), the Private Medical Practitioners' Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (PMPASKL), and the Penang Medical Practitioners' Society (PMPS) have been specifically cautioned about the possibility of violating Competition Act.
MyCC urged SPMPS to withdraw its advisory encouraging members to implement these new charges.
PMPASKL and PMPS have also been advised not to hold any meetings or make decisions that could result in the uniform imposition of new charges, as this could be considered a breach of the law.
'Under the Competition Act 2010, any enterprise found guilty of violating the Act may face financial penalties of up to 10% of its global turnover during the period of infringement.
'MyCC will not hesitate to initiate investigations and take strict enforcement actions against any parties involved in anti-competitive conduct,' said Idris.
He further stressed MyCC is closely monitoring the situation and called on all stakeholders in the healthcare sector to fully comply with competition laws.
'MyCC reaffirms its commitment to promoting a competitive, healthy, and transparent marketplace for the benefit of consumers and the integrity of Malaysia's economy,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Focus Malaysia
14 hours ago
- Focus Malaysia
Starting August 2025, apprentices must be paid minimum wage
THE National Wages Consultative Council (Amendment) Act 2025 ('Act') will come into effect on August 1, 2025. But what does this mean for employers? Starting August 1, employers hiring apprentices will be legally required to pay them at least the national minimum wage, which is currently set at RM1,700 per month. This marks a significant policy shift in how apprenticeship is viewed and it also reflects a broader commitment to improving wage standards in Malaysia. Companies need to review apprenticeship contracts and prepare for compliance by August 2025 to ensure they meet the new legal requirements and avoid potential penalties. Why is this happening? Up until now, apprentices have not been legally recognised as employees under the Act, meaning they could be paid less or even nothing at all, despite working full-time and contributing to a business. That is about to change. The Act expands the definition of 'contract of service' to include apprenticeship and resulting from this, the provisions relating to the minimum wage will also be applicable to an apprentice. A 'contract of service' is currently defined as 'any agreement, whether oral or in writing, and whether express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another person as an employee and that other person agrees to serve his employer as an employee but does not include an apprenticeship contract'. Pursuant to the amendment, the definition of 'contract of service' will now follow the definition in the Employment Act 1955 ('EA 1955'), Sabah Labour Ordinance and Sarawak Labour Ordinance, meaning: 'Any agreement, whether oral or in writing and whether express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as an employee and that other agrees to serve his employer as an employee and includes an apprenticeship contract'. What is an apprenticeship? Under EA 1955, 'apprenticeship contract' means: A written contract entered into by a person with an employer who undertakes to employ the person and train or have him trained systematically for a trade for a specified period which shall be for a minimum period of six months and a maximum period of 24 months in the course of which the apprentice is bound to work in the employer's service. Apprenticeship is not internship When tabling the National Wage Consultation Council (Amendment) Bill 2024 for the second reading last year, Deputy Human Resources Minister Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Mohamad states that an apprenticeship programme is education and training governed by an apprenticeship agreement, allowing apprentices to gain the necessary competence to work in a job through structured training and financial remuneration or compensation. It differs from a traineeship programme, which involves on-the-job learning that allows trainees to gain work experience and competencies to enhance their employability. An internship programme involves students being exposed to real job environments and receiving short-term training to meet certain educational/learning qualifications. He explained that, from a legal standpoint, only apprenticeship programmes are governed by specific laws and regulations. In contrast, other internal training programmes, such as traineeships or industrial training, are not bound by any formal legal framework. Their implementation is left entirely to the discretion of the employer without oversight or mandatory guideline. ‒ July 3, 2025 Leonard Yeoh is a senior partner and Pua Jun Wen a senior associate with the law firm, Tay & Partners. The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Main image:
The Star
15 hours ago
- The Star
Code of practice to help companies with AI rules may come end 2025, EU says
FILE PHOTO: A copy of "The European Union Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act" on display during the AI & Big Data Expo 2025 at the Olympia, in London, Britain, February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Isabel Infantes/File Photo
The Star
16 hours ago
- The Star
Explainer-Will the EU delay enforcing its AI Act?
FILE PHOTO: A copy of "The European Union Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act" on display during the AI & Big Data Expo 2025 at the Olympia, in London, Britain, February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Isabel Infantes/File Photo STOCKHOLM (Reuters) -With less than a month to go before parts of the European Union's AI Act come into force, companies are calling for a pause in the provisions and getting support from some politicians. Groups representing big U.S. tech companies such as Google owner Alphabet and Facebook owner Meta, and European companies such as Mistral and ASML have urged the European Commission to delay the AI Act by years. WHAT IS THE AUGUST 2 DEADLINE? Under the landmark act that was passed a year earlier after intense debate between EU countries, its provisions would come into effect in a staggered manner over several years. Some important provisions, including rules for general purpose AI (GPAI) models, are due to apply on August 2. GPAI, which includes foundation models like those made by Google, Mistral and OpenAI, will be subject to transparency requirements such as drawing up technical documentation, complying with EU copyright law and providing detailed summaries about the content used for algorithm training. The companies will also need to test for bias, toxicity, and robustness before launching. AI models classed as posing a systemic risk and high-impact GPAI will have to conduct model evaluations, assess and mitigate risks, conduct adversarial testing, report to the European Commission on serious incidents and provide information on their energy efficiency. WHY DO COMPANIES WANT A PAUSE? For AI companies, the enforcement of the act means additional costs for compliance. And for ones that make AI models, the requirements are tougher. But companies are also unsure how to comply with the rules as there are no guidelines yet. The AI Code of Practice, a guidance document to help AI developers to comply with the act, missed its publication date of May 2. "To address the uncertainty this situation is creating, we urge the Commission to propose a two-year 'clock-stop' on the AI Act before key obligations enter into force," said an open letter published on Thursday by a group of 45 European companies. It also called for simplification of the new rules. Another concern is that the act may stifle innovation, particularly in Europe where companies have smaller compliance teams than their U.S. counterparts. WILL IT BE POSTPONED? The European Commission has not yet commented on whether it will postpone the enforcement of the new rules in August. However, EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen promised on Wednesday to publish the AI Code of Practice before next month. Some political leaders, such as Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, have also called the AI rules "confusing" and asked the EU to pause the act. "A bold 'stop-the-clock' intervention is urgently needed to give AI developers and deployers legal certainty, as long as necessary standards remain unavailable or delayed," tech lobbying group CCIA Europe said. The European Commission did not respond immediatelyt to requests for comment. (Reporting by Supantha Mukherjee in Stockholm and Foo Yun Chee in Brussels. Editing by Mark Potter)
