AUTH/1930/12/06: University Hospital Principal Pharmacist v Pliva Pharma – email chase about discounts and generics (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1930/12/06
Parties	University Hospital Principal Pharmacist v Pliva Pharma Ltd
Issue	Email to complainant’s colleague chasing progress after meeting about discounts (including Cystistat) and introduction of generic lines
Product(s)	Cystistat (device; not subject to the Code) and Pliva generic medicines (not individually named)
Applicable Code year	2006
Clauses considered	8.2, 9.1, 15.2
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	7 December 2006
Case completed	16 February 2007
Appeal	No appeal
Published	May 2007 Code of Practice Review

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 principal hospital pharmacist complained about Pliva representatives’ promotion of generic medicines and an email sent by a Pliva regional hospital manager to the complainant’s colleague.
The email referenced a prior meeting about a proposed scheme including a discount on Cystistat and introduction of new generic lines, and asked the colleague to contact the complainant to see “what’s happening”.
The complainant said she had immediately switched the purchasing route for Cystistat to obtain the cheapest price, and that many other generics discussed were subject to national contracts and required comparison with other suppliers.
The complainant had received one email and one telephone call chasing progress; she told both parties she had not yet had time to sort everything out.
Pliva said Cystistat was a device (not a medicine) and that its pricing offer and follow-up were made in good faith and reflected a lack of communication within the hospital about what had already been implemented.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
Allegations relating to Cystistat: no prima facie case to answer because Cystistat was a device and not subject to the Code.
The Panel found the email was a straightforward chase for an outcome from a prior meeting and did not disparage the complainant or question her professional integrity.

🔒

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