How much are cancer patients expected to save every year because of the wider margin cap?

The correct answer is 30 per cent of the Maximum Retail Price. The Government has approved a ceiling on the margins charged while non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines move through the supply chain to the patient, and that ceiling is fixed at 30 per cent of the MRP. The measure is expected to pull prices down by as much as 70 per cent and to leave cancer patients about Rs 2,500 crore better off every year. Options A and B, at 10 per cent and 20 per cent, are tighter than the level actually approved; no such lower ceiling was announced for these medicines, and quoting them would understate the margin a seller may still retain. Option D, at 50 per cent, is looser than the approved figure and would leave much of the mark-up untouched, which defeats the purpose of the decision. The number worth remembering is therefore 30 per cent of MRP, applied to medicines that sit outside the scheduled list and so were previously free of direct price control.

The correct answer is the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority. Two bodies have distinct roles here, and the question turns on telling them apart. An expert committee under the Directorate General of Health Services will finalise the list of medicines that the cap should cover; once that list is ready, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority will take the decision and issue the notification giving the cap legal effect. Option D, the Directorate General of Health Services, therefore comes earlier in the sequence and does not notify prices. Option A, NITI Aayog, is the Government policy think tank and has no role in fixing medicine prices. Option C, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, is the national drug regulator concerned with approvals, quality and safety of medicines rather than with what they cost. The pricing authority is also the body that capped trade margins on selected anti-cancer drugs in February 2019.

The correct answer is 42. In February 2019, on the direction of the Government, the pricing authority capped trade margins on 42 selected non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs, using Paragraph 19 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013. That decision brought retail prices down by up to 91 per cent across 526 brands and was reported to save patients Rs 984 crore a year, which is why it is cited as the precedent for the wider cap approved now. Options A, C and D are near misses designed to test whether the figure has been memorised precisely rather than roughly; none of them was the number of drugs covered. A useful way to hold the 2019 decision in mind is the chain of four numbers that go with it: 42 drugs, 526 brands, prices lower by up to 91 per cent and a yearly saving of Rs 984 crore.

The correct answer is Joint Commissioner. The Council recommended changes to sections 68, 129 and 130 of the CGST Act so that a vehicle carrying goods may be stopped only when there is specific intelligence about it and an officer of at least this rank has cleared the action. A state through which the consignment is merely passing may not intercept it, and inspection or seizure is possible only where either the supplier or the recipient is based or registered in that state. Options A and B are wrong because an inspector or a superintendent cannot authorise such an interception under the recommendation, even though officers of those ranks carry out field checks. Option D is wrong because clearance at so senior a level was never proposed and would make enforcement unworkable. Where no e-way bill exists, goods may still be inspected or seized anywhere, and goods in transit are protected from confiscation.

The correct answer is Rs 10,000. The Council recommended cutting the ceiling on the general penalty under section 125 of the CGST Act from 25,000 rupees to 10,000 rupees. The same figure appears in a second decision of the meeting: a show cause notice is not to be issued at all where the tax at stake is below 10,000 rupees, counting central, state and integrated tax together with cess, and pending notices and appeals below that amount are to be settled as though the floor had always applied. Options A, C and D are wrong because none of 5,000, 15,000 or 20,000 rupees was recommended as the new ceiling; they are plausible only as round numbers between the old and the new limits. The Council also removed the minimum penalty in cases that do not involve fraud.