Anonymous v Merck Sharp & Dohme: Cerazette ‘retrospective rebate’ allegation (AUTH/2599/4/13) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2599/4/13
Parties	Anonymous (non-contactable) v Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited
Product	Cerazette (oral contraceptive)
Main allegation	Retrospective rebate scheme offered to clinics/hospitals over 12 months as an inducement to prescribe
Clauses considered	Clause 2; Clause 18.1
Company position	No retrospective rebate; only non-retrospective discounts via national purchasing authorities (hospital tenders) and pre-agreed clinic discounts; no personal benefit to HCPs/staff
Panel finding	No evidence the alleged retrospective rebate existed; complainant did not discharge burden of proof
Outcome	No breach of Clauses 18.1 and 2
Complaint received	30 April 2013
Case completed	30 May 2013
Applicable Code year	2012
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

🎬 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, non-contactable complainant alleged Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) offered clinics/hospitals a retrospective rebate on Cerazette use over a 12‑month period to counter loss of share after generics launched.
The complainant alleged this was an inducement to prescribe, raising a prima facie concern under Clause 2.
The PMCPA asked MSD to also consider Clause 18.1 (terms of trade/inducements) in its response.
MSD denied any retrospective rebate scheme and described only non-retrospective discounts: (1) NHS hospital supply contracts agreed via national purchasing authorities through formal tendering/contracting; (2) discounted supply to some family planning clinics agreed prior to purchase.
The Panel noted the complainant could not be contacted and therefore had to decide the case on the evidence provided; the complainant carried the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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