Eli Lilly: Representative implied grant funding depended on increased insulin use (AUTH/2044/9/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2044/9/07
Parties	Hospital consultant physician v Eli Lilly and Company Limited
Issue	Representative implied educational post funding could be threatened unless Lilly insulin use increased
Complaint received	10 September 2007
Case completed	26 October 2007
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	Clause 2, Clause 9.1, Clause 15.2, Clause 18.1, Clause 18.4
Company position	Representative acted on his own initiative; grants handled by independent committee; representative dismissed
Panel note	Grant approved May 2006; paid June 2006; no sales/marketing involvement in decision process
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
Appeal	No appeal

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

📋

⌄

A consultant physician complained about a Lilly representative’s conduct during a discussion about Lilly insulins.
The representative said he was under pressure from managers to increase use of Lilly insulin and used the phrase: “we are basically paying you to use Novo Nordisk’s insulins”.
He implied that funding for an educational post in the local diabetes clinical network would be reviewed by Lilly’s Awards and Grants Committee and could be under threat because the hospital’s use of Lilly insulins had not increased.
The complainant challenged this, stating the funding had nothing to do with insulin usage and described the implication as a threat/“blackmail”.
Lilly stated the grant had been approved (May 2006) and paid (June 2006) via a Grants and Donations Committee with no sales/marketing involvement, and that the representative acted on his own initiative.
Lilly investigated and dismissed the representative.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found.
The Panel ruled breaches of Clauses 18.1, 18.4 and 15.2 (as acknowledged by Lilly).
The Panel also ruled breaches of Clauses 9.1 and 2, finding high standards had not been maintained and the conduct brought discredit upon/reduced confidence in the industry.
The Panel decided not to report Lilly to the Code of Practice Appeal Board because the representative was acting outside company instructions.
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