Healthy Skepticism Library item: 5799
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: news
MA could dump code: ACCC boss
Pharma in Focus ( Australia) 2006 Jul 31
http://www.pharmainfocus.com.au/news.asp?newsid=1259
Notes:
Ralph Faggotter’s Comments:
“With the MA board due to consider its reaction to the ACCC’s Conduct
Code intervention this week, ACCC head Graeme Samuel has said it could
choose to abandon self-regulation altogether.”
The ACCC watchdog is finally starting to disobey its master (the Federal Government which has tried to keep it muzzled), and do a little barking.
Full text:
MA could dump code: ACCC boss
http://www.pharmainfocus.com.au/news.asp?newsid=1259
Posted 31 July 2006
With the MA board due to consider its reaction to the ACCC’s Conduct
Code intervention this week, ACCC head Graeme Samuel has said it could
choose to abandon self-regulation altogether.
“They have three basic options, to accept the decision and be protected,
to have a less transparent code and risk the possibility of action under
the Trade Practices Act or have no code at all and bear the public
criticism that will come from that,” Mr Samuel said.
Last Wednesday’s imposition of detailed 12-month monitoring and
six-monthly reporting of pharmaco-sponsored meetings for healthcare
professionals has caused widespread dismay and anger among
pharmaceutical companies.
The decision is expected to cost industry millions of dollars and
companies fear it could lead to a media feeding frenzy each time the
information is published.
AMA President, Dr Mukesh Haikewal criticised the move, calling it
“unreasonable” and saying it would discourage company support for
medical education.
However, Mr Samuel said year round data gathering was no more difficult
than gathering data for a single month, the condition originally
inserted in the ACCC’s April draft determination. He described the AMA
reaction as disappointing, saying: “There ought to be open and full
public disclosure.”
Mr Samuel strongly denied allegations that the decision had been
influenced by medical and mainstream media reporting of hosptality
extended by Roche to oncologists in July 2005.
The reports – first published in the British Medical Journal and The
Australian newspaper on July 21 – alleged Roche had spent around $70,000
on expensive restaurant meals and alcohol for the doctors. A Code of
Conduct complaint was lodged with MA at the time the reports appeared
but no adjudication has taken place.
The ACCC wrote to MA’s solicitors on the same day saying it was likely
to extend the period of monitoring and reporting but gave no indication
of the planned increase from one to 12 months.
“I can give you an absolute assurance that we were in no way influenced
by the story in The Australian,” Mr Samuel said. “The decision was made
before the stories appeared.”
MA spokesperson Paul Cross said the July 21 letter came as a complete
surprise as did the nature of the condition in the final determination.
Until July 21, following a number of meetings and correspondence with
the ACCC, MA believed the original one month condition in the draft
determination would stand.
Asked about exactly when the details of the monitoring requirement were
decided, Mr Samuel said, “I don’t know about the extent of discussion
among my staff. There was a view at the commission table that there was
no reason why a twelve month reporting decision should not be put in
place. There was no support for the view that it was administratively
difficult.”
MA called on Mr Samuel to release the commission’s internal
documentation to clarify when and how the decision was made. “Medicines
Australia supports greater transparency and accountability, which is why
we have a code of conduct. We believe that public confidence in the ACCC
would be well served by the release of all internal ACCC documentation
relating to their deliberations and decision on the Code of Conduct. At
the very least, this will enable the ACCC to confirm that this week’s
announcement followed a full and proper process,” Mr Cross said.
However, Mr Samuel said the documentation would not be made available,
adding he was not prepared to undergo a detailed cross-examination on
the issue. “Either you believe me or you dont,” he said.
“That’s very disappointing,” Mr Cross said. He said the MA board would
consider the code re-authorisation at its meeting this week but could
not reveal what options were likely to be discussed.
