Amidst 'Tada' Repeat Fears, Doctor Now Rejects Blanket Ban as Excessive Regulation

Controversy over the 'DoctorNow Prevention Act': Innovation or Regulation, What is the Future of Digital Healthcare?

The so-called 'DoctorNow Prevention Act,' which prohibits non-face-to-face medical treatment platforms from concurrently operating as pharmaceutical wholesalers, has faced strong opposition ahead of its passage in the National Assembly plenary session. The amendment to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, proposed by Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Kim Yoon, contains provisions that would fundamentally block platforms from entering the pharmaceutical distribution business, and concerns are pouring in from both the non-face-to-face medical treatment industry and political circles. DoctorNow has fully refuted the bill. First, it countered the criticism that non-covered drugs constitute a high proportion of its offerings, stating that the majority of supplied drugs are covered by insurance (80.7%). It also emphasized that there is no preferential exposure of specific pharmacies or provision of kickbacks, and that the 'stock confirmed' label is information for patient convenience. It further explained that substitute dispensing occurs under the pharmacist's professional judgment and patient consent. Regarding claims for regulation based on overseas examples, DoctorNow argued that developed countries only impose ex-post sanctions on unfair practices and do not prohibit platforms from engaging in the pharmaceutical distribution business itself, drawing a distinction. DoctorNow cited the structural limitation of difficulty in finding pharmacies with prescription drug stock after non-face-to-face consultations as the background for its concurrent operation as a pharmaceutical wholesaler. It emphasized that, in practice, after the implementation of this service, the drug pickup rate during nights and holidays significantly improved from 44.6% to 84%, enhancing public access to medicines and the effectiveness of non-face-to-face medical treatment. DoctorNow also proposed to allay concerns through service reforms, such as opening up the pharmacy inventory system and abolishing labels like 'stock confirmed' in the future. Alarm bells have also rung in political circles. Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Kim Han-kyu likened the bill to the 'Tada Prohibition Act,' pointing out that retrospectively banning a business previously permitted under current law is unjust. This has drawn criticism that it disregards the positive function of improving access for medically vulnerable populations and threatens the startup ecosystem by retroactively outlawing an innovative business model. The argument is that side effects should be resolved through ex-post regulation, and it is inappropriate to outlaw the business model itself. Lawmaker Kim emphasized that the ultimate judgment should be based on the interests of the entire nation. The industry is also on edge. Viewing the situation as a conflict between 'innovation and vested interests' surrounding regulation, there are concerns that if the DoctorNow Prevention Act passes the plenary session, the non-face-to-face medical treatment industry could face a similar fate to Tada. In this complex issue, where public interest in improving medical access, the order of the pharmaceutical industry, and startup innovation are intricately intertwined, the future direction of the digital healthcare industry is expected to vary greatly depending on the political choice. DoctorNow agrees with ex-post sanctions for unfair practices but maintains that clear ex-post sanction methods are more reasonable than comprehensive pre-emptive regulation.