Servier: contract agency email suggested increased GP call frequency (AUTH/1890/9/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1890/9/06
Parties	Contract Representative v Servier Laboratories Ltd
Issue	Representative call rates / risk of overcalling
Complaint received	20 September 2006
Case completed	24 November 2006
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	Clause 15.9
No breach clauses considered	Clause 15.4; Clause 2
Key evidence	15 September 2006 agency email stating reps would be “required to see [targets] at increased frequency”; lack of written retraction to field force noted by Panel
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

A contract representative complained that Servier’s contract sales activity effectively required some GPs to be visited up to six times before Christmas, which they believed exceeded the Code’s normal limit for unsolicited calls.
The Panel considered supplementary information that calls to a doctor/prescriber should not normally exceed three per year on average (excluding group meetings, requested visits, and adverse reaction follow-up).
On 15 September 2006, the contract representative agency emailed reps in territories with fewer than 50 target GPs, stating they would be “required to see them at increased frequency”.
On 21 September, after discussion with Servier, the agency told sales managers more doctors would be added to target lists so overcalling would not be necessary; the Panel was concerned there were no written instructions sent to the field force retracting the earlier “increased frequency” message.
The Panel found no evidence that overcalling had actually occurred.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 15.9 was ruled because the 15 September email advocated a course of action likely to breach the Code.
No breach of Clause 15.4 was ruled because there was no evidence that overcalling had actually occurred.
No breach of Clause 2 was ruled; the Panel did not consider the matter sufficiently serious for that level of censure.
No appeal.

🔒

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

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access