Otsuka voluntary admission: RBM email set excessive call-frequency targets and was uncertified (AUTH/2626/8/13)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2626/8/13
Company	Otsuka Pharmaceuticals (UK) Limited
Issue	RBM email set excessive call-frequency expectations and follow-up cadence; email/plan not certified as briefing material
Applicable Code year	2012
Complaint received	02 August 2013
Case completed	03 September 2013
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 14.1; Clause 15.4
Sanctions applied	Undertaking received
Product(s) named	Not stated
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth2626813-voluntary-admission-by-otsuka

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

📋

⌄

Otsuka Pharmaceuticals (UK) Limited made a voluntary admission that a regional business manager (RBM) briefed sales teams in a way that appeared to set a call-frequency target that would breach the Code.
After a team teleconference (late October 2012), the RBM emailed two product sales teams instructing them to:
- Identify target customers already seen 2–4 times and “move them to 8–9 calls” by end of October, asking reps to plan when they would “see them this month”.
- Plan follow-up after meetings: “1st call within 48 hours and followed by a second call in 10 days”.
Otsuka stated the instruction exceeded what was agreed in performance appraisal documents and exceeded what was acceptable under the Code (noting the Code expectation of no more than three unsolicited calls per year on average).
Otsuka said the RBM may have used “call” in error instead of “contact”, but accepted that even on that basis the implied activity could still be excessive.
It was unclear whether the instruction translated into non-compliant activity, but Otsuka and the Panel proceeded on the assumption that it had.
Otsuka also identified that the RBM email (and an accompanying 30-day plan) were not reviewed/certified as required by SOP (briefing materials to be entered into Zinc). The 30-day plan was later dropped and not implemented.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found of Clause 15.4 (frequency and manner of calls) because the email advocated a course of action that would not comply with the Code.
Breach found of Clause 14.1 because the email constituted representatives’ briefing material that should have been certified but was not.
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