Assessment of the “Dr. Now Prevention Act” (“Second Tada Ban”) Debate and Future Legislative Tasks

1. Overview

The so-called “Doctor Now Prevention Act” (an amendment to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act), recently discussed in the National Assembly, centers on prohibiting telemedicine platform operators from concurrently engaging in pharmaceutical wholesale business. Although the bill was effectively derailed when it failed to be placed on the plenary session agenda in December 2025, the underlying structural issues—platform regulation, vested interests in the medical sector, and consumer welfare—remain unresolved.

This Economic Bill Review examines △ the positions of political parties △ stakeholder analysis △ institutional limitations △ the likelihood of reintroduction, and proposes △ legislative tasks centered on market competition and consumer welfare.

2. Trends in National Assembly Deliberations

◩ Progress of the bill

▲ 2024.11.13.: Amendment to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act introduced

▲ 2025.11.20.: Passed the National Assembly Health and Welfare Committee

▲ 2025.12.2.: Failed to be placed on the plenary session agenda

◩ Main contents

▲ Prohibits platform companies (e.g., Doctor Now) from concurrently operating pharmaceutical wholesale businesses

▲ Intended to block the risk of platforms exerting influence over specific pharmacies or pharmaceutical companies

▲ Also contains elements aimed at protecting the professional domain of pharmacies

◩ Positions of the ruling and opposition parties

(1) Democratic Party of Korea

▲ Strong tendency to prioritize safety and the views of professional groups

▲ However, some lawmakers raised concerns about “excessive preemptive regulation”

(2) People Power Party

▲ Emphasized the need to foster the digital healthcare industry

▲ Argued that ex post regulation would be sufficient

▲ Expressed concern over regulations that hinder innovation

3. Analysis of Stakeholder Responses

◩ Pharmacists’ and medical professional organizations: strongly in favor

▲ Concerned about the growing influence of platforms and increasing market dependence

▲ Clearly wary of changes to the pharmacy distribution ecosystem

◩ Startups and the IT industry: completely opposed

▲ Argued that preemptive prohibition stifles innovation and is similar to the “Tada ban law”

▲ Raised concerns about reduced consumer convenience

◩ General public

▲ Convenience-oriented groups (ages 20–40): concerned about inconvenience caused by regulation

▲ Safety-concerned groups: raised the need to prevent drug misuse and strengthen oversight

→ Public opinion is divided by generation and user experience

4. Institutional Issues

◩ Limits of a pre-regulation-centered approach

▲ Restricts business models based on “possibility” rather than actual cases of harm

▲ Risks constraining the introduction of new technologies and services

◩ Increased regulatory costs from prior prohibition

▲ Reduces consumer choice

▲ May lower access to healthcare

◩ Platform fairness issues can be addressed through separate systems

▲ Monopoly and exclusive contract issues can be handled through the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act or ex post regulatory mechanisms

▲ Risks can also be mitigated by improving transparency in pharmaceutical distribution

5. Assessment of the Likelihood of Reintroduction

◩ Continued objections from stakeholders such as pharmacists’ organizations

→ Due to the interests of the Korean Pharmaceutical Association, there is a very high likelihood that a bill with the same purpose will be reintroduced

◩ Strengthening of the broader platform regulation trend (including online platform fairness measures)

→ There is a strong possibility that “telemedicine platform services,” which are promoting competition in existing industries, will be included in a broader package of comprehensive regulation

◩ Linkage with discussions on institutionalizing telemedicine

→ As discussions continue on fully permitting and institutionalizing telemedicine in response to expanded consumer choice and satisfaction among users of telemedicine services, there is considerable potential for this issue to reemerge in the form of competing legislation

6. Conclusion and Legislative Tasks

The controversy over the so-called Doctor Now Prevention Act (the amendment to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act) is highly likely to resurface amid a clash among three factors: ① platform innovation ② protection of professional domains ③ consumer welfare. Future legislation in the National Assembly should be designed not around the model of “preemptive regulation → harm to innovation,” but on the basis of 1) stronger ex post regulation 2) greater transparency 3) consumer welfare-centered evaluation 4) ensuring platform fairness.

This approach would simultaneously satisfy the principles of the market economy, the promotion of technological innovation, and the enhancement of public welfare, and could serve as an applicable standard across medical and digital healthcare policy more broadly. Accordingly, the following five legislative tasks are proposed.

◩ Improve and codify the ex post regulatory system

▲ Address unfair trade, rebates, coercive practices, and the like by strengthening separate ex post punishment provisions

▲ Minimize regulations that prohibit businesses based solely on “possibility”

◩ Introduce a disclosure system for transparency in pharmaceutical distribution

▲ Require a certain level of disclosure on platform distribution structures, the proportion of affiliated pharmacies, and supply prices

▲ Strengthen market monitoring functions → prevent unreasonable transactions

▲ Less costly and more effective than prohibition-based regulation

◩ Restrict exclusive contracts between platforms and pharmacies

▲ To prevent specific platforms from dominating the market or limiting pharmacies’ freedom of choice, revise “provisions prohibiting exclusive contracts” in the Fair Trade Act and the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act to promote competition through minimal regulation

◩ Mandate consumer welfare impact assessments

▲ When introducing medical or platform regulations, quantitatively assess costs, accessibility, time savings, and consumer satisfaction, thereby shifting from “professional domain protection-centered regulation” to “consumer-centered regulation”

◩ Establish standard guidelines for digital healthcare and grant regulatory exceptions to compliant firms

▲ Set standards for personal information protection, data processing, and algorithm transparency

▲ Provide regulatory exceptions and support to firms that comply with these standards, thereby promoting innovation while ensuring safety

---

Original title: 닥터나우 방지법(‘제2 타다 금지) 논의의 평가와 향후 입법과제

Author: Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

Date: 2025-12-05

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=issue&pn=1&idx=28317