Sri Lanka price controls push British, US meds out of local market, according to claims made by former minister Wimal Weerawansa. His remarks have triggered fresh debate on the direction of the country’s pharmaceutical standards and regulatory choices.
Debate intensifies as Sri Lanka price controls push British, US meds out of local market
Sri Lanka’s decision to impose maximum retail prices on 350 essential drugs has sparked new controversy as former minister Wimal Weerawansa alleges that the policy will gradually force British and American medicines out of the market. Speaking at a small public gathering, Weerawansa argued that the government’s pricing mechanism is designed in a way that favours Indian-produced pharmaceuticals, leading to a significant shift in the composition of products available to consumers.
According to Weerawansa, the current National People’s Power administration recently entered into seven agreements with India, one of which included the approval of Indian standard medicines for the first time in Sri Lankan history. He claimed that this approval, alongside the newly announced price controls, is part of a broader effort that will ultimately reshape the pharmaceutical landscape in the country. The former minister, known for his frequent criticism of Western influence, said the combined effect of these decisions would make it increasingly difficult for medicines that follow British or American quality standards to remain competitive in the market.
He argued that the introduction of price caps has created an environment in which Indian manufacturers hold a clear advantage. Since Indian drugs are generally produced at lower costs, they align more easily with fixed retail prices. By contrast, medicines imported from the United Kingdom or the United States are typically priced higher due to stricter production standards and regulatory frameworks, making it difficult for them to operate profitably under the new limits. As a result, Weerawansa claimed, Sri Lankan consumers may soon find themselves without access to Western-standard pharmaceuticals.
During his remarks, Weerawansa asserted that only roughly thirty countries currently purchase medicines manufactured to Indian domestic standards, suggesting that Sri Lanka may be lowering its own quality threshold. According to him, prior to the current administration, only medicines that met or exceeded British standards could be legally imported. Any product falling below that benchmark, he said, was considered unacceptable under previous regulations. This shift, he added, represents a dramatic departure from long-standing policy and raises concerns about the safeguarding of quality in the country’s healthcare system.
Weerawansa went on to describe the administration’s decisions as unprecedented in Sri Lanka’s 76-year post-independence history. He suggested that such regulatory changes, framed as cost-saving and consumer protection measures, could instead expose patients to lower-grade medications. His comments drew strong reactions across social media and were widely circulated after being broadcast on a private television channel. Supporters agreed that Sri Lanka should uphold stricter pharmaceutical standards, while critics accused him of politicising the issue without offering scientific evidence or acknowledging international certifications widely recognised in global medicine markets.
The controversy comes just days after the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA) announced a sweeping set of maximum retail prices for commonly used drugs, including treatments for hypertension and several types of cancer. The price controls, effective immediately, are part of the authority’s mandate to regulate affordability and ensure access to essential medicines across the country. Since its establishment in 2015, the NMRA has frequently been involved in debates over pricing, quality standards, and regulatory oversight, with various administrations using price intervention as a tool to manage healthcare costs.
While the NMRA has not responded directly to Weerawansa’s allegations, officials have previously stated that pricing decisions are informed by extensive research, affordability concerns, and comparative cost studies from international markets. They argue that lowering prices does not equate to lowering standards and that imported pharmaceuticals must still comply with required safety and efficacy benchmarks before entering the local market. Industry professionals have also noted that Indian pharmaceutical products supply a significant portion of global demand and are widely used in both developing and developed countries.
At the same time, concerns remain within parts of the medical community regarding the long-term effects of strict price ceilings. Some stakeholders worry that aggressive controls may discourage high-quality manufacturers from supplying the Sri Lankan market, particularly if margins fall below sustainable thresholds. Others believe that more nuanced regulation could help balance affordability with access to premium medications, ensuring that patients are not forced into limited choices based on cost alone.
As the debate continues, the impact of Sri Lanka’s price control mechanisms will become clearer over the coming months. The government maintains that the measures are essential to keep essential medicines affordable for the public during a period of economic hardship. Critics, however, insist that safeguarding quality must remain central to national health policy. Whether the new pricing regime ultimately benefits or harms consumers will depend on how effectively regulations are enforced and how the pharmaceutical industry adapts to the new environment.
What is certain is that the discussion has amplified public scrutiny of the country’s healthcare decisions. As Sri Lanka price controls push British, US meds out of the local market—according to these allegations—the broader question emerging is how the nation can balance affordability, safety, and long-term health outcomes amid shifting political narratives.