Anonymous employee v Pfizer (AUTH/1876/8/06): Hospital rep “call rate of 8” breached Clause 15.4

📅 2006 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

CaseAUTH/1876/8/06
PartiesAnonymous employee v Pfizer
IssueHospital representative call/contact frequency targets ("call rate of 8")
Complaint received2 August 2006 (HTML page also states 01 August 2006)
Case completed6 November 2006 (HTML page also states 05 November 2006)
Applicable Code year2006
Breach clausesClause 15.4
Clauses considered (no breach)Clause 2; Clause 9.1
SanctionsUndertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
AppealNo appeal
PublishedFebruary 2007 Code of Practice Review

Download the full case report (PDF)


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

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI
🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough
🎬
Video walkthrough — coming for members
Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.
Subscribe — from £299/yr
📋

What happened

  • An anonymous Pfizer representative complained that hospital representatives were asked to call on target doctors eight times per year and felt their job was at risk if they did not.
  • Internal planning/performance documents instructed reps to “maintain a call rate of 8” and expected senior targets to be seen 6.5 times face-to-face (7.5 “overachieved”) in Dec 2005–Nov 2006.
  • Business Planning Guidance (Anti-Infectives) referenced coverage 90% and frequency 8 (with a footnote that frequency was to be planned by the salesperson and agreed with the district sales manager).
  • Pfizer argued “call rate” meant “contact rate” and that “contact” was interpreted broadly (including reactive contacts, meetings, corridor exchanges), and said it had not received HCP complaints about inconvenience.
  • The Panel considered “call rate” would be understood as proactive calls by a representative, not reactive encounters or meeting attendance, and noted the documents did not explain or refer to Code requirements.
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach found: Clause 15.4.
  • No breach: Clause 9.1 (not justified).
  • No breach: Clause 2 (not warranted; reserved for particular censure).
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training