AUTH/2884/10/16 - Clinical commissioning group member v Intrapharm

Letters to GP practices

  • Received
    19 October 2016
  • Case number
    AUTH/2884/10/16
  • Applicable Code year
    2016
  • Completed
    05 May 2017
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    August 2017 Review

Case Summary

A member of the medicines management team at a clinical commissioning group (CCG), complained to Intrapharm Laboratories about a letter it had sent to GP practices in the CCG. The complainant copied her complaint to the Authority.

 The letter in question was headed 'New Carbocisteine in Sachets – supported by your CCG' and was accompanied by a double-sided A4 advertisement. The letter provided details about the new sachets and their advantages over the currently available capsules and liquid. Readers were informed that the sachets were '… the most cost effective option' and that 'your local CCG has endorsed the use of the Carbocisteine Sachets'.

The complainant stated that the statement that 'your local CCG has endorsed the use of the Carbocisteine Sachets' was not true as the CCG did not support or endorse Carbocisteine Sachets.

Intrapharm had written to the complainant to apologise for the error which it stated was due to a mix up with the postcodes because nearby CCGs, which also formed part of the same support unit had endorsed Carbocisteine Sachets. The company enclosed a copy of a letter, for the complainant's approval, to recall the original letter and apologise for the mistake made. Intrapharm stated that it planned to send the letter to the named CCG GPs immediately.

The detailed response from Intrapharm is given below.

The Panel noted that the letter in question had been sent to GPs in the named CCG. For those recipients the claim that 'your local CCG has endorsed the use of the Carbocisteine Sachets' was not true. The letter was misleading and the claim could not be substantiated. Breaches of the Code were ruled. The Panel noted Intrapharm's remedial action following notifcation of the error. However, the Panel ruled a breach as the company had failed to maintain high standards.

At the completion of the case Intrapharm refused to pay the full administrative charge and was reported to the Appeal Board in accordance with Paragraph 16.6 of the Constitution and Procedure (Paragraphs 5, 7.1 and 8.1 also referred).

The Appeal Board decided in accordance with Paragraph 11.4 that if full payment was not received within ten working days further action would be taken.

The administrative charge was received from Intrapharm on 5 May 2017. No further action was required