:format(webp)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/grupoclarin/MVQTQMJWMEZGMZJWHAZDSNLCGY.jpg "The Civic Coalition denounces potential “cartelization” of prepaid medicine companies")
The Civic Coalition (CC) presented this Tuesday before the National Commission for the Defense of Competition (CNDC) a complaint for “potential cartelization conduct” in the prepaid medicine services market, by the companies that make up the Argentine Union of Health (UAS) to increase prices for users and suppliers.
The presentation is as a result of the “configuration of the anti-competitive practice provided for in subsection a) of Article 2 of Law 27,422” on the Defense of Competition, for which “users would be exposed to a potential increase in the prices of prepaid medicine plans, from the entry into force of DNU 70/2023 until today,” the CC indicated in its presentation.
This is “conduct legally considered to be absolutely restrictive of competition and that causes harm to the general economic interest,” he warned.
The party, created by Elisa Carrió, argued that the main companies that provide the aforementioned service participated in this “anti-competitive conduct” and that, according to statements seen in the media by their directors, they concentrate more than half of the total users of the entire prepaid medicine market in Argentina.”
The presentation of the CC bears the signatures of the leaders Hernán Reyes, Maximiliano Ferraro, Rubén Horacio Manzi and Juan Facundo Del Gaiso, represented by lawyer Federico Esswein.
Against Belocopitt
“These companies, of which there is some type of record as a result of the journalistic statements of Claudio Belocopitt, and the subsequent increases, would be, initially, by the companies that are part of the UAS,” pointed out the complainants, who They attached “as a test” circulars from Swiss Medical, Medife, German Hospital, British Hospital, Galen, Omint, and – they added – “it is known through the media that the same thing happens with Osde.”
They pointed out that “as a result of the market analysis process, evaluation of the conditions and conduct actually carried out and new evidence that may occur after the start of the summary, the list of companies involved in the potential cartelization could be expanded or modified.”
In this sense, they requested “that the behavior of the UAS be analyzed and whether its regulations or practices comply with the CNDC standards regarding this type of business chambers.”
Attached evidence
They also attached “journalistic notes in which one of those, presumably, involved, says: that there were meetings to coordinate the setting of an increase for users; An estimated value of around 40% increase for users was set; Presumably, contracting policies were agreed upon with their suppliers in the provision of the service; and that the agreed price policies could, they estimate, impact an average loss of 30% of service users.”
For the complainants, “this last statement is paradoxical” because “a loss of 30% of users is significant in practically any market that is analyzed.”
“The facts described by Claudio Belocopitt explicitly denote an apparently direct coordination of prices both for the supply of the service to users, as well as for the demand for its suppliers,” they stated.
“Despite this, the cartelized parties would have accepted this consequence as bearable collateral damage.” […] “They continued with the conduct and chose to effectively apply the increase of around 40% in the prepaid medicine plans offered and continuing with said coordinated action for the coming months,” they elaborated.
Then, it was stated that “these practices should turn on the alert lights in this CNDC, in the entire Ministry of Commerce and in the Superintendence of Health Services.”
“The notion of freedom expressed by the new administration cannot contradict regulatory compliance by the officials on duty. The duty to supervise, control and, eventually, sanction this type of behavior is not available given the ideological beliefs of the officials,” the CC stated.
Finally, he warned that “inaction, if any, on the part of the officials in charge, would mean a breach of their duties and would result in the corresponding administrative and criminal sanctions.”