AUTH/2321/5/10: Media/Director v Roche — Tamiflu corporate sector approach and alleged inducements (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2321/5/10
Parties	Media/Director v Roche
Medicine	Tamiflu
Source of allegations	Financial Times article (22 May 2010) referencing matters raised in an employment tribunal
Main issues alleged	Promotion of a POM to non-doctors/non-health professionals; pressurised selling; incentivisation via “cash payments”/discounts
Complaint received	25 May 2010
Case completed	5 July 2010
Applicable Code	2006 Code (considered under the Constitution and Procedure of the 2008 edition); matters at issue occurred during 2006
Clauses considered	Clauses 2, 9.1 and 18.1
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Notable Panel observations	Instructions to staff/materials use were “not sufficiently clear”; a promotional sales aid was certified for “the Business Community and Occupational Health” though said to be used only with health professionals in practice
Sanctions	None

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

⌄

A Financial Times article (22 May 2010) reported allegations raised in an employment tribunal that Roche pressured sales staff to sell the POM Tamiflu to people who were not doctors and incentivised customers with cash payments.
It was alleged Roche targeted business continuity managers at companies seeking private stockpiles during pandemic concerns, including via a specialist team established in 2006 to develop corporate/private sector Tamiflu business.
The article also alleged Roche overcharged the NHS by discounting to pharmacists/distributors and used cash payments/discounts on future orders to maintain market share.
The PMCPA Director took up the matter as a complaint; the journalist was invited to contribute but did not respond.
Roche said it did not promote Tamiflu to non-health professionals; staff guidance stated: “If speaking to a doctor/nurse/medically qualified individual we discuss antivirals/Tamiflu. If speaking to non-medic, we talk generically about supporting their pandemic plan and that we would need to speak to their medical advisor to discuss medical support and POM’s”.
Roche said rebates were provided as credit notes (not cash payments) and were standard commercial practice; the employment tribunal judgment did not mention cash payments.
The Panel noted concerns about clarity of internal instructions and that a promotional sales aid was certified for use with “the Business Community and Occupational Health”, although Roche said it was only ever provided to health professionals in practice.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found no evidence (on the balance of probabilities) that Roche actually promoted Tamiflu to non-health professionals as alleged.
The Panel found no evidence of inappropriate discounts or cash payments contrary to Clause 18.1.

🔒

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

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access

AUTH/2321/5/10: Media/Director v Roche — Tamiflu corporate sector approach and alleged inducements (No breach)

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown