Case Summary
A consultant physician alleged that an invitation from Abbott, to attend a renal care advisory board looked suspiciously like commercial promotion, or at least a kind of marketing focus group for directing sales tactics, not genuine consultation on clinical management as claimed. The company had offered an honorarium of £500 which the complainant thought was quite exorbitant for a 6 hour session, plus travel and accommodation if required.
The complainant stated that he was not a leading expert in parathyroid or bone disease and had not published in this area. It appeared that the invitation had been sent out using a generated list of recipients. The complainant had received two copies, one was blank and not even signed.
The Panel had some concerns about the arrangements. It queried whether the invitation was sufficiently clear that the honorarium offered was a payment for work and advice. It did not appear that invitees had been sent the agenda with the invitation. The agenda provided by Abbott was headed Zemplar UK Advisory Board Meeting compared with the invitation provided by the complainant which was headed Abbott Renal Care Advisory Board. The agenda showed only two breakout sessions each of an hour (including feedback and conclusions). Most of the rest of the day was taken up with various presentations lasting a total of just over two hours and a total of 45 minutes for questions. The Panel queried whether the 6 hour meeting allowed enough time for feedback and input from the attendees such that each would contribute sufficient to justify the honorarium. There was less than three hours during the day when delegates were not listening to set presentations. It did not appear that delegates were expected to do any preparation for the meeting.
On balance the Panel considered that the arrangements were such that the meeting was not an advisory board but a promotional meeting. It was not appropriate to pay doctors to attend such meetings. High standards had not been maintained; breaches of the Code were ruled.
On balance the Panel did not accept that the circumstances warranted a ruling of a breach of Clause 2 which was used as a sign of particular censure; the delegates to the meeting had been expected to do some work, no breach of Clause 2 was ruled.
Upon appeal by Abbott the Appeal Board noted that the purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the current positioning of Zemplar as a first line choice was appropriate. The Appeal Board wasconcerned that the agenda was very full of formal presentations and the time available for discussion might be limited. However, on balance it considered that the invitation and agenda sent to the complainant together with the arrangements for the advisory board were not unreasonable. Participants were being paid to attend an advisory board not a promotional meeting. No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Appeal Board noted that Abbott had intended to hold the advisory board with a maximum of fifteen renal physicians. On 21 September twenty one invitations were sent. By 25 October only two physicians had confirmed their attendance. Abbott submitted that due to the low uptake, and in order to ensure that the meeting could take place in central London as planned, the company started to concentrate on inviting local experts. A further thirty five invitations were generated in head office and distributed by Abbott's representatives. Abbott's representatives could suggest names of invitees but these were assessed and invited by head office.
The Appeal Board was concerned that the list of invitees provided by Abbott had consisted of seventy five names and not fifty-six (21 plus 35) as stated. Despite being assured by Abbott's representatives at the appeal that only those on the list were invited, the list did not include the complainant's name. Neither of the invitations supplied by the complainant were on company headed paper, his name had been hand written on one and both were unsigned. At the appeal hearing Abbott's representatives were unable to explain this discrepancy. The company did not know the name of the complainant. The Appeal Board was concerned that sales representatives appeared to have been involved in issuing invitations without head office's knowledge. The Appeal Board considered that the process for inviting attendees was disorganised and in that regard high standards had not been maintained; the Appeal Board upheld the Panel's ruling of a breach of the Code.
AUTH/2063/10/07 - Hospital doctor v Abbott
A consultant physician alleged that an invitation from Abbott, to attend a renal care advisory board looked suspiciously like commercial promotion, or at least a kind of marketing focus group for directing sales tactics, not genuine consultation on clinical management as claimed. The company had offered an honorarium of £500 which the complainant thought was quite exorbitant for a 6 hour session, plus travel and accommodation if required.
The complainant stated that he was not a leading expert in parathyroid or bone disease and had not published in this area. It appeared that the invitation had been sent out using a generated list of recipients. The complainant had received two copies, one was blank and not even signed.
The Panel had some concerns about the arrangements. It queried whether the invitation was sufficiently clear that the honorarium offered was a payment for work and advice. It did not appear that invitees had been sent the agenda with the invitation. The agenda provided by Abbott was headed Zemplar UK Advisory Board Meeting compared with the invitation provided by the complainant which was headed Abbott Renal Care Advisory Board. The agenda showed only two breakout sessions each of an hour (including feedback and conclusions). Most of the rest of the day was taken up with various presentations lasting a total of just over two hours and a total of 45 minutes for questions. The Panel queried whether the 6 hour meeting allowed enough time for feedback and input from the attendees such that each would contribute sufficient to justify the honorarium. There was less than three hours during the day when delegates were not listening to set presentations. It did not appear that delegates were expected to do any preparation for the meeting.
On balance the Panel considered that the arrangements were such that the meeting was not an advisory board but a promotional meeting. It was not appropriate to pay doctors to attend such meetings. High standards had not been maintained; breaches of the Code were ruled.
On balance the Panel did not accept that the circumstances warranted a ruling of a breach of Clause 2 which was used as a sign of particular censure; the delegates to the meeting had been expected to do some work, no breach of Clause 2 was ruled.
Upon appeal by Abbott the Appeal Board noted that the purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the current positioning of Zemplar as a first line choice was appropriate. The Appeal Board was concerned that the agenda was very full of formal presentations and the time available for discussion might be limited. However, on balance it considered that the invitation and agenda sent to the complainant together with the arrangements for the advisory board were not unreasonable. Participants were being paid to attend an advisory board not a promotional meeting. No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Appeal Board noted that Abbott had intended to hold the advisory board with a maximum of fifteen renal physicians. On 21 September twenty one invitations were sent. By 25 October only two physicians had confirmed their attendance. Abbott submitted that due to the low uptake, and in order to ensure that the meeting could take place in central London as planned, the company started to concentrate on inviting local experts. A further thirty five invitations were generated in head office and distributed by Abbott's representatives. Abbott's representatives could suggest names of invitees but these were assessed and invited by head office.
The Appeal Board was concerned that the list of invitees provided by Abbott had consisted of seventy five names and not fifty-six (21 plus 35) as stated. Despite being assured by Abbott's representatives at the appeal that only those on the list were invited, the list did not include the complainant's name. Neither of the invitations supplied by the complainant were on company headed paper, his name had been hand written on one and both were unsigned. At the appeal hearing Abbott's representatives were unable to explain this discrepancy. The company did not know the name of the complainant. The Appeal Board was concerned that sales representatives appeared to have been involved in issuing invitations without head office's knowledge. The Appeal Board considered that the process for inviting attendees was disorganised and in that regard high standards had not been maintained; the Appeal Board upheld the Panel's ruling of a breach of the Code.
