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

June 15, 2020

Thailand Takes Steps to Ensure Availability of High-Demand Medical Supplies

Informed Counsel

Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic has taken top priority for almost every country in the world. In Thailand, even though the strength of the country’s health security measures has been ranked sixth-best globally, COVID-19 hit hard, and the country has only just begun to detail with the effects of the outbreak.    

In the early stages of the outbreak in January 2020, only passengers who had visited mainland China were subject to close monitoring by communicable disease control officers. By late February, South Korea had become another epicenter of the outbreak, and many Thai nationals who had been working there chose to return home to Thailand to avoid COVID-19 infection. Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) was concerned that the local outbreak would become more widespread as a result of these returnees infecting others (if indeed they were infected). While this risk now seems to have been successfully handled, the virus continues to rage in various countries in Asia and around the world.   

These circumstances preceded the MOPH designating COVID-19 as a “dangerous communicable disease” under the Communicable Disease Act B.E. 2558 (2015). While incoming international travel was effectively sealed off relatively early on, the few remaining incoming travelers have been subject to certain conditions such as quarantine and special monitoring.   

Communicable disease control officers are empowered to require suspected persons to be diagnosed and quarantined. Under the current rules, all COVID-19 patients and suspected COVID-19 patients—defined as having a fever higher than 37.5 degrees Celsius and any other symptom associated with COVID-19, such as coughing, a runny nose, a sore throat, or shortness of breath—are brought to a medical facility specified by the MOPH for diagnosis, treatment, isolation, and quarantine, as necessary. People returning from high-risk areas but not showing any symptoms have been subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine and have had to adhere to strict health-related follow-up exams.    

Apart from the quarantine measures, people have been advised to strictly practice good personal hygiene throughout the course of the outbreak. Unsurprisingly, alcohol-based hand sanitizers and face masks have faced severe shortages in Thailand. The MOPH has been involved in the supply of these high-demand items by relaxing some regulations on their importation and production. However, these moves alone are not considered sufficient. The Department of Internal Trade of the Ministry of Commerce has also stepped in to control the supply and set up the maximum allowable purchase price of face masks. Other regulations related to these products have been modified to counteract shortages—examples include reclassification of alcohol-based hand sanitizers, implementation of fast-track pathways for the domestic production of alcohol-based hand sanitizers, declaration of alcohol-based hand sanitizers and disposable medical masks as controlled goods, and so on. Regulations such as these will likely continue to change periodically, so healthcare entrepreneurs should check frequently that they are compliant with the latest updates.

Thailand’s Updated Regulations on Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers and Disposable Medical Masks   

The Cosmetics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) and the Medical Device Act B.E. 2551 (2008), as amended, provide the regulatory framework for the trading and post-marketing surveillance of both alcohol-based hand sanitizers and face masks in Thailand. In 2019, the MOPH reclassified alcohol-based hand sanitizers as medical devices (instead of their previous categorization as cosmetics), with the reclassification to enter into force on March 11, 2020. However, the COVID-19 outbreak intervened, causing a shortage of alcohol-based sanitizers. The MOPH acted to ease this shortage by canceling the reclassification of alcohol-based hand sanitizers because the more stringent controls applied to medical devices would cause unnecessary delays. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers will therefore continue to be classified as cosmetics for the foreseeable future.    

For new registrations of alcohol-based hand sanitizers, it was announced that only products containing alcohol concentrations greater than 65% w/w would be allowed to be registered (through notification and approval) as controlled cosmetics. The notification certificate is valid for three years and is renewable. The Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also relaxed regulations to allow pharmaceutical manufacturers, traditional drug manufacturers, and medical device manufacturers located in Thailand to produce and sell alcohol-based hand sanitizer without having to first obtain a cosmetics manufacturing license. In other words, after registering its product with the FDA, the manufacturer can bring it to market.    

The shortage of disposable masks is much more acute. Hospitals have run out of their supply due to high public demand, low production scale, and hoarding. Some people have seen this as an opportunity to earn extra income by making and selling homemade masks as an alternative to commercial face masks. These reusable homemade masks are not classified as medical devices and cannot be claimed to be personal protective equipment against the coronavirus. Only disposable medical masks are regulated; they are classified as low-risk medical devices. Imported masks require product registration with the Thai FDA. For domestically manufactured masks, although product registration is not required, the domestic manufacturer is still required to register the establishment as a medical device manufacturer with the FDA. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Medical Device Control Division has agreed to facilitate all registration processes for establishments producing disposable medical masks.

Price Controls

As both alcohol-based hand sanitizer and disposable medical masks are currently in high demand, the Thai Central Committee on Prices of Goods and Services (CCP) has published a notification announcing price controls. For alcohol-based hand sanitizer, the manufacturer, importer, and distributor of the product must notify the CCP of the pricing details. In addition, the price may not be increased without receiving permission from the CCP. For domestically manufactured disposable medical masks, the retail price must not exceed THB 2.50 (approx. USD 0.08). However, the price of imported masks has not yet been fixed. The CCP has only required that the importer, distributor, and retailer not mark up the price more than 10%, 10%, or 23%, respectively. As for exports, the CCP has banned all unauthorized exportation of medical masks. Though they had previously directed exporters to seek permission only for shipments of 500 masks or more, this led some exporters to divide their shipments to circumvent the requirement. Therefore, according to the latest CPP notification, all exporters must first obtain approval from the CPP before exporting mask products, regardless of the amount to be exported. Meanwhile, the price of these products in the Thai market continues to rise as the fixed-price policy only applies to domestically manufactured disposable medical masks and because some traders do not obey the law when faced with high demand.
    In summary, the widespread concern about the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred the Thai government to ensure an adequate supply of masks and alcohol-based  hand sanitizer for the public. Their regulatory moves and relaxation of certain requirements have indeed eased  supply problems; on the other hand, vendors acting in bad faith have exploited legal loopholes, increasing the already substantial chaos and turmoil gripping society. For instance, there were reports of individuals hoarding large quantities of masks for resale in the black market and for illegal exportation. Moreover, some unscrupulous vendors recycled used masks and resold them as new ones. As a result, the government has ordered severe punishment for anyone who violates the law during this trying situation. It is thus imperative at this time that healthcare entrepreneurs understand and comply with the law governing the supply of products in need during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of