AUTH/2345/8/10: Healthcare Consortium v Daiichi-Sankyo (Olmetec) – No breach (representative discussion about NHS White Paper) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2345/8/10
Parties	Healthcare Consortium v Daiichi-Sankyo UK Ltd
Product	Olmetec (olmesartan)
Issue	Alleged statement that a medicines management team would be disbanded; concern it could mislead GPs to prescribe
Context	Discussion referencing DoH White Paper “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” and whether PCTs would be disbanded
Complaint received	10 August 2010
Case completed	29 October 2010
Applicable Code year	2008
Clauses considered	Clauses 7.2 and 15.2
Panel decision	No breach
Appeal	No appeal
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 medicines management team leader complained on behalf of a local healthcare consortium about an alleged statement made by a Daiichi-Sankyo representative promoting Olmetec (olmesartan).
The allegation: the representative told a practice that the medicines management team was to be disbanded (said to be incorrect and potentially misleading to influence prescribing).
The complainant was not present at the conversation; it was reported by a general practice manager.
The practice did not consent to being identified to Daiichi-Sankyo, limiting the company’s ability to identify the representative and investigate.
Daiichi-Sankyo reviewed call records across 31 practices in the consortium and identified one potentially matching visit (3 August 2010), where a representative (with his manager) discussed the Department of Health White Paper “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” and asked whether it meant PCTs would be disbanded.
The representative explicitly denied saying the medicines management team would be disbanded.
The Panel noted the White Paper was published 12 July 2010, but the primary care sales team briefing occurred on 23 September 2010 (after the alleged discussion and after the complaint was received), and queried whether briefing should have happened earlier given the sensitivity and foreseeability of such discussions.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel found it was likely the representative discussed the implications of the White Paper with a practice manager.
The Panel could not determine, on the balance of probabilities, that the representative stated the medicines management team would be disbanded (accounts differed).
No breach of the Code was ruled for the clauses considered.
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