You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 22, 2017

Changes to Indonesian Regulations for Sponsorships of Health Professionals

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Effective healthcare depends on innovation, and companies operating in the healthcare sector—including pharmaceutical and medical device producers and distributors—are usually eager to educate health professionals about their products and services so that they are up to date on the latest industry knowledge and skills. Often, this can involve providing sponsorships for health professionals to attend relevant events, such as seminars and workshops.

While they want to encourage this form of education, healthcare companies also need to ensure that these sponsorships are compliant with local laws and regulations in each jurisdiction where they are offered. In Indonesia, the requirements in this area have historically been vague, but this has changed with the introduction of a new regulation in late 2016 that clearly sets out the compliance requirements for sponsorships of health professionals.

Background

Under Indonesia’s Regulation of Health Minister No. 14 of 2014 concerning Gratification Control in the Ministry of Health (Regulation 14), marketing-or product research-related sponsorships fall into the category of “gratification which is considered as bribery,” if they are offered to employees of the Ministry of Health. Gratification is one of the criminal acts of corruption, according to Articles 12B and 12C of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Law No. 20 of 2001, as part of the government’s objective to ensure that government officials are free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism.

The wording of Regulation 14, together with the Anti-Corruption Law, would appear to treat sponsorships as a form of bribery when they are provided to government employees, while leaving nongovernment employees uncovered by the regulation. To clarify this, the Indonesian government and the Medical Professional Association decided that an effective system of controls for sponsorships of both government and nongovernment health professionals was required. The objective of this system would be to allow for sponsorships of health professionals, while putting in place clear measures to ensure that the sponsorships will not affect their ability to provide independent healthcare services.

New Regulation

To meet this objective, on November 29, 2016, the Indonesian Ministry of Health enacted Regulation No. 58 of 2016 concerning sponsorships for health professionals (Regulation 58) to specify the appropriate provisions and limitations for these types of sponsorships. Under this regulation, a “health professional” has been defined as “any person who dedicates themselves in the field of health and has knowledge and/or skill through education in the field of health”. This definition makes it clear that Regulation 58 applies to both governmental and nongovernmental health professionals working in any segment of the industry.

The purpose of Regulation 58 is to ensure that sponsorships, when provided, will not affect the independence of health professionals in providing health care services. For example, sponsorships should not affect the writing of prescriptions or encourage the use of related products of a sponsoring company. To this end, Regulation 58 stipulates that a sponsorship may be granted to health professionals who are government employees, nongovernment employees, or solo practicing health professionals, provided that the sponsorship must:

  • Not affect their independence in providing healthcare services.
  • Not be in the form of cash or cash equivalents (i.e., bank checks).
  • Not be granted directly to the individual—rather, it should be provided through the institution at which the health professional is employed.
  • Be related to the health professional’s areas of expertise.
  • Be granted publicly with accountability and transparency.

A sponsorship for a health professional who is an employee of an institution (whether governmental or nongovernmental) must be granted through their institution by assignment and must be in accordance with their expertise. The institution must announce publicly the health professionals who received the sponsorship. A sponsorship for those in solo practice is exempted from this requirement, and may be granted in accordance with their expertise with no public announcement required.

In addition to sponsorships being granted to health professionals, a sponsorship may also be granted to an institution, an organization of a healthcare facility, or a professional association. These three forms of sponsorship can be used for organizing seminars, scientific or educational meetings, and trainings.

Regulation 58 goes on to stipulate the details of sponsorships granted to health professionals who intend to attend an event as a participant, speaker, or moderator. For a participant, the sponsorship can include the registration fee, travel tickets, or travel accommodations. For a speaker or moderator, the sponsorship can include the registration fee, travel tickets, travel accommodations, or honorarium. The amount of sponsorship received by a health professional as a participant, speaker, or moderator must be in accordance with the unit cost of the actual expenses incurred by  the association or company that is providing the sponsorship.

Reporting and Penalties

Providers or recipients of the sponsorships must report the sponsorship to Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (Indonesian: Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, KPK) no later than 30 days after receiving the sponsorship. Reporting received sponsorships will exempt the recipients and the sponsors from potential criminal sanctions for gratification under the Anti-Corruption Law.

Monitoring of the implementation of Regulation 58 will be conducted by the Minister of Health and local officials (governors, regents, or mayors) in accordance with their respective duties and authorities. Any health professional who violates this regulation may be subject to administrative sanctions, such as verbal or written warnings, and/or revocation of their licenses. Criminal sanctions for inappropriate sponsorships that are deemed to be gratification under the Anti-Corruption Law include imprisonment of one to five years or a fine of IDR 50 million (approximately USD 3,750) to IDR 250 million (approximately USD 18,750).

With the enactment of Regulation 58, companies now have clarity on the procedures for sponsoring activities of both government and nongovernment health professionals. It is expected that this regulation will help to improve the professional development of health professionals, without compromising their ability to independently provide healthcare services to the public.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) has issued new regulations establishing clearer procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate halal product assurance requirements. BPJPH Regulation No. 2 of 2026 on the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions for Violations of Halal Product Assurance Implementation, issued on June 5, 2026, strengthens Indonesia’s halal compliance framework, as mandated under Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. BPJPH Regulation No. 2/2026 also supports the upcoming mandatory halal compliance deadline of October 17, 2026, which will apply to a broad range of products and services, including imported food and beverages, slaughtering products and services, natural and quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical and genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household goods, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices. Scope BPJPH is authorized to impose administrative sanctions for violations of halal product assurance requirements committed by businesses, halal inspection agencies (LPH), halal auditors, halal product process companion institutions (lembaga pendamping PPH), and halal product process companions (pendamping PPH). The head of BPJPH has authority to determine, cancel, or amend the imposition of administrative sanctions, including upon receipt of objections. This authority covers revocation of Halal Certificates (including foreign halal certificate registration numbers), withdrawal of goods from circulation, freezing of LPH operations, freezing of halal product process companion institutions, revocation of PPH companion institution registration numbers, revocation of halal auditor registration numbers, and revocation of LPH accreditation status. Administrative Sanctions Businesses may be subject to any of the following administrative sanctions: Written warning; Administrative fine; Revocation of the halal certificate, including revocation of foreign halal certificate registration numbers; and Withdrawal of goods from circulation. The regulation sets out the types of violations that may trigger these sanctions, with each
Read More
July 1, 2026
Obtaining marketing authorization is a fundamental requirement for bringing pharmaceutical products to the Thai market. Companies must navigate the Thai Food and Drug Administration’s registration procedures while also complying with post-approval pharmacovigilance obligations, licensing requirements for manufacturing and importation, data protection rules, and other regulatory requirements. This guide provides an overview of Thailand’s regulatory framework for pharmaceutical marketing authorization, including available registration pathways, review timelines, application fees, postmarketing surveillance obligations, licensing requirements, exemptions, data exclusivity, freedom of information, and parallel import considerations. It is intended as a practical reference for pharmaceutical companies, regulatory affairs professionals, and others involved in bringing medicinal products to the Thai market. Download the guide below for a concise overview of the current requirements and procedures governing pharmaceutical marketing authorization in Thailand.
Read More
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 19, 2026
For the first time, Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a consolidated list identifying all substances that have successfully passed its novel food safety evaluation process. The list is a step forward in regulatory transparency, but it also highlights a feature of the Thai regime that food companies often overlook: each approval is tied exclusively to the company that applied for it. A substance’s appearance on the list does not give other companies the green light to use it. This article examines the structure of Thailand’s novel food approval framework, the implications of applicant exclusivity, and the strategic choices it requires of food companies looking to bring novel ingredients to the Thai market. Thai FDA Food Safety Evaluation Framework Notification No. 376 of the Ministry of Public Health requires novel food substances to undergo a food safety assessment, with an exemption only for novel foods manufactured exclusively for export. The framework also encompasses “foods that do not qualify as novel foods” but which present characteristics warranting a safety evaluation, such as differing quality standards, increased serving sizes, or applications in specific food categories, where such changes affect consumption levels, nutritional value, or consumer safety. The recently published list of foods that passed the safety evaluation by the Thai FDA is structured by substance category and identifies the approved company (domestic manufacturer or importer), country of origin, substance name and trade name, approved purpose of use, and date of the Thai FDA’s approval notification certificate. A notable feature of Thailand’s novel food regime is that the approval result is tied exclusively to the company that submitted the application. Publication of the consolidated list does not constitute a general authorization to use the approved substances. The Thai FDA’s approval certificate specifies the approved conditions of use and the requirements
Read More