What happened

• A BBC Radio 4 programme (File on 4) broadcast in May 2019 and a BBC website article titled ‘Doctors used as “guinea pigs” in opioid painkiller promotion’ criticised Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited, including a Napp-sponsored meeting held in New York.
• Under the PMCPA Constitution and Procedure, public criticism was taken up by the Director and treated as a complaint under the Code.
• The broadcast/article described UK pain specialists being taken to New York with hospitality and entertainment (including upscale dining and Broadway shows) paid for by Napp; the meeting was described as an “educational package”.
• A health professional interviewed in the programme later told the PMCPA they believed the overseas meeting occurred in spring 2002, lasted five days, included visits to New York hospitals, dinner (including an end-of-course dinner at the top of the Rockefeller Centre), an invitation to a Broadway show, and a helicopter trip around Manhattan.
• Napp said its archive contained no original certified materials for the meeting and relevant financial records had been destroyed in 2013; it relied largely on the recollection of one remaining employee and could not verify all details.
• Napp understood around 15 pain specialist delegates attended (with up to four Napp staff) and said the primary purpose was educational: exchange of ideas/clinical best practice between UK and US pain specialists, including visiting US pain clinics for practical demonstrations.
• Napp said it was not aware of arranging the helicopter tour; it understood tickets might have been arranged for one Broadway show.
• Napp submitted it did not believe it had ever been its practice to monitor individual doctor prescribing and said it did not have the capacity to do so; it stated UK prescribing information was purchased from a third-party provider which confirmed individual prescriber-level data was not provided to companies.

Outcome

• The Panel considered the meeting appeared to have taken place in 2002, so the 2001 Code applied.
• On the limited evidence, the Panel considered there appeared to be an educational element, and there was insufficient evidence to establish whether the meeting content failed the “clear educational content” requirement; no breach was ruled on that narrow point.
• However, the Panel ruled it was not acceptable (in 2002) to take approximately 15 UK health professionals to New York for five days for what appeared, on limited information, to be a company promotional meeting; Napp’s stated aims did not of themselves justify the overseas venue and duration. A breach was ruled.
• On the balance of probabilities, the Panel decided Broadway tickets had been arranged; it ruled that providing entertainment such as Broadway theatre tickets/trips would have been unacceptable under the Code in 2002. Breaches were ruled.
• The Panel ruled that high standards had not been maintained and that the activities brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry (Clause 2 breach).
• Post-hoc note in the report: At the conclusion of the case, Napp advised it is a company independent of, but associated with, Purdue Pharma.

Clauses

• 2001 Code Clause 19.1 (hospitality/meetings; including overseas venues requiring valid and cogent reasons; hospitality must be secondary and not out of proportion): Breach (overseas venue/duration and arrangements; and in relation to entertainment).
• 2001 Code Clause 18.1 (prohibition on gifts/benefits in kind as an inducement): Breach (entertainment such as Broadway theatre tickets/trips).
• 2001 Code Clause 9.1 (high standards): Breach.
• 2001 Code Clause 2 (discredit/reduced confidence): Breach.

Sanctions

No explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

ABPI signatory lens

Why this matters: Overseas meetings and hospitality are judged heavily on the impression created. Even where some educational activity exists, an attractive destination, extended duration, and entertainment can make the event look like an inducement and trigger Clause 2 reputational harm.

Where teams typically slip up (interpretation):

• Relying on “there was education” while under-documenting why the venue had to be overseas and why the duration was necessary.
• Allowing any entertainment element (tickets, tours) to creep into the agenda as a “nice extra”, underestimating how it will be viewed under gifts/inducement principles.
• Failing to preserve the job bag/financial rationale long enough to defend decisions years later, leaving the company exposed when challenged publicly.

The control that would have prevented it: A mandatory pre-approval checklist for meetings that (1) requires written “valid and cogent reasons” for any non-UK venue and multi-day duration, (2) prohibits entertainment outright, and (3) blocks approval unless the agenda and spend demonstrate hospitality is strictly secondary.

What I’d check in the job bag:

• Certified agenda showing educational objectives, speakers, timings, and how clinic visits were structured.
• Written justification for New York as the venue (why it could not be done in the UK) and for a five-day format.
• Itemised budgets/invoices for travel, accommodation, meals, and any hospitality; evidence that hospitality was appropriate and proportionate.
• Any documentation about theatre tickets/other leisure activities (or explicit confirmation they were not provided).
• Delegate selection criteria and invitations (to confirm selection based on professional role and relevance).
• Internal approvals and signatory rationale demonstrating consideration of “impression” and Code requirements.

What the sanctions tell you (interpretation):

• The case outcome focused on Code breaches rather than additional published sanctions, suggesting the key compliance lesson is prevention through robust meeting governance and documentation.
• Clause 2 was applied, indicating the Panel viewed the arrangements as damaging to industry confidence, which can amplify reputational risk beyond the specific meeting.
• The Panel’s reliance on “balance of probabilities” and limited records highlights that weak record retention can materially worsen defensibility in legacy-event scrutiny.

3 questions to ask your team this week:

1. If we held this meeting outside the UK, do we have a written, specific, “valid and cogent” justification that would stand up to external scrutiny?
2. Can we evidence (agenda + spend) that hospitality is strictly secondary and proportionate—and that no entertainment/benefits in kind are included?
3. Are our job bags and financial records retained long enough to defend decisions years later if challenged by media or regulators?

Key facts

Download the full case report (PDF)

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory