Anonymous v Bayer: Incentive scheme materials implied call targets that could breach the ABPI limit on unsolicited representative calls (AUTH/2533/10/12)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2533/10/12
Parties	Anonymous v Bayer
Issue	Representative call rates; incentive scheme materials potentially encouraging excessive unsolicited calls
Complaint received	11 October 2012
Case completed	27 November 2012
Applicable Code year	2012
Materials	Presentations emailed to representatives: “Incentive Scheme H2 2012” (ref UK.PH.GM.2012.057) and “Consolidation Objectives for H2” (ref UK.PH.GM.2012.055); later FAQ certified 27 September (ref UK.PH.GM.2012.079)
Panel findings	Breach Clauses 9.1 and 15.9; No breach Clauses 2 and 15.4
Appeal	No appeal
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 complainant (appearing to be a Bayer employee) alleged Bayer HealthCare’s H2 2012 incentive scheme encouraged representatives to make three calls/visits on all target customers in the second half of the year regardless of earlier activity.
Slides from the incentive scheme presentation were provided, showing bonus-linked “frequency activity scale” targets (eg percentages of target customers seen three times).
Bayer had emailed two presentations to representatives: Incentive Scheme H2 2012 and Consolidation Objectives for H2, plus a covering email emphasising maximising time in territory and number of target customers seen.
Neither the covering email nor the H2 incentive presentation explicitly referenced the ABPI Code requirements on call frequency; the “terms and conditions” slide referred back to H1 terms.
Bayer relied on initial training and an internal SOP stating “Calls are proactive – no more than 3 per [health professional] per year”, and later produced an FAQ (certified late September) clarifying “within the limit of 3 unsolicited calls per year”.
The Panel stressed the Code expectation that briefing material should distinguish between expected call rates and contact rates, and that targets must be realistic and not drive breaches.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 15.9: the incentive scheme material was found to advocate a course of action likely to breach the Code.
Breach of Clause 9.1: by advocating a course of action likely to breach the Code, the material did not maintain a high standard.
No breach of Clause 15.4: no evidence was provided that call frequency caused inconvenience to health professionals.
No breach of Clause 2: despite serious concern, the Panel decided the circumstances did not warrant the particular censure of Clause 2.
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