Healthy Skepticism Library item: 6466

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

Dow S.
Drug company 'forked out $180 a head for banquet'
Age Newspaper (Melbourne) 2006 Nov 29
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/drug-company-forked-out-180-a-head-for-banquet/2006/11/28/1164476205090.html

Notes:

Ralph Faggotter’s Comments:

What a mockery of the rules!
This is a perfect example of how – SELF REGULATION= NO REGULATION

Full text:

NEUROLOGISTS and nurses were treated by drug company Biogen to an
“educational” dinner at Melbourne’s prestigious Flower Drum restaurant
last year that may have cost $180 a head.

In a complaint to the drug industry’s ruling body, rival drug company
Schering alleged a 10-course meal was served on February 22, 2005.
Schering said the Chinese banquet was not “simple and modest” as per the
industry’s hospitality code of conduct.

Biogen denied any wrongdoing, saying the aim of the dinner was to
present a discussion by US physician Patrick Parcells on the “evolution
and future direction” of multiple sclerosis treatments.

The company also argued that there were only seven courses at the
dinner, not 10.

The drug industry’s ruling body said yesterday it had dismissed the
complaint, despite its self-regulating ethics committee conceding it did
not know how much the dinner cost.

The Australian drug industry is this week fighting the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission’s demands that it make the
hospitality lavished on health care professionals more transparent.

Medicines Australia, the main pharmaceutical industry body, which has
administered its own code of conduct since 1960, has taken the fight to
a three-member bench of the Australian Competition Tribunal in the
Federal Court in Sydney.

But a member of Medicines Australia’s code of conduct committee
yesterday conceded in court that the committee had dismissed Schering’s
complaint because of “insufficient evidence” of breaches, even though
the committee did not know how much was spent on the dinner.

John Seale, a University of Sydney clinician representing
pharmacologists and toxicologists on the committee, said he agreed with
the committee’s finding that Biogen had not breached the code of conduct.

In a statement tendered to the court, Dr Seale said the hospitality at
the Flower Drum was “clearly secondary to the educational content”, even
though no one on the committee had seen a copy of Dr Parcells’ presentation.

But it was the “responsibility of the complainant (Schering) to provide
all relevant information (on the complaint) to the code committee”, Dr
Seale said in his statement.

Dr Seale disclosed that he was involved in “organising educational
events that are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies”.

Counsel for the ACCC, Alan Robertson, asked: “If you had known the cost
per head was approximately $180, would that have had a bearing on
whether you thought the hospitality was ‘simple and modest’?”

Dr Seale replied: “It would certainly have been a consideration.”

The hearing continues today.