AUTH/1974/3/07: Employees v Merck Sharp & Dohme – DEXA service allegations (no breach) and call-rate objectives (breach of Clause 15.9) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1974/3/07
Parties	Anonymous employees v Merck Sharp & Dohme
Complaint received	01 March 2007
Case completed	14 June 2007
Published	August 2007 Code of Practice Review
Allegations	Provision of a service (DEXA placement initiative) and representatives’ call rates/objectives
Products mentioned	Fosamax Once Weekly
Service element outcome	No breach of Clause 18.1 and hence no breach of Clauses 9.1 and 2 (upheld on appeal)
Call-rate element outcome	Breach of Clause 15.9 (not appealed)
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous group of Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) employees complained about (1) provision of a service (a forearm DEXA placement initiative run 2002–2004 by the FROSST sales division) and (2) representatives’ call rates/objectives.
They alleged MSD had misled the Authority/Appeal Board in an earlier case (AUTH/1859/6/06) by saying the “DEXA Placements DIY Guide” was only shared with a small group, whereas they claimed ideas were cascaded across the whole FROSST division.
They provided a 2003 “Performance Planning Form” template that included an objective referencing DEXA placements and a target that “at least 80% of all Osteoporotic patients identified are treated with Fosamax Once Weekly by December 2003”.
They also provided two management slides about the DEXA programme (2002 YTD and 2003 plan) referencing throughput assumptions and an “80%” Fosamax figure.
Separately, they pointed to activity objectives in the Performance Planning Form that required high “1:1 contacts” frequency (e.g., frequency of 6 for “Super Targets” and 4 for “Targets”) and an objective to “Increase 1:1 GP activity (both call volume and call rate) relative to 2002 performance”.

⚖️

⌄

Provision of a service (DEXA initiative): No breach – the Panel ruled no breach of Clause 18.1 and hence no breach of Clauses 9.1 and 2; the Appeal Board upheld this.
Representative call rates/objectives: Breach – the Panel ruled the Performance Planning Form advocated a course of action likely to breach the Code and found a breach of Clause 15.9. This ruling was not appealed.

🔒

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