AUTH/2646/10/13: MSD breached ABPI Code over unclear sponsorship disclosure at public health screening event (Health Mela)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2646/10/13
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable health professional
Company	Merck Sharp & Dohme
Issue	Sponsorship of health screening at a public health fair (Health Mela); alleged poor confidentiality and unclear declaration of company involvement
Event date	October 2013
Complaint received	20 October 2013 (PDF) / 25 October 2013 (web page)
Case completed	19 February 2014 (PDF) / Completed 15 January 2014 (web page)
Applicable Code year	2012
Panel findings	Breach of Clauses 9.1 and 9.10; No breach of Clauses 2, 15.2 and 15.9
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Appeal	No appeal
Financial support mentioned	£3,556.01 stated as total financial support (hire of LDX machines and disposables); invoice cited as £3,345.01 plus VAT (£4,014.01)

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 health professional complained about a public health fair (“Health Mela”) in October 2013 featuring NHS-style health checks (heart disease/diabetes) and other activities.
The complainant alleged patient confidentiality arrangements were poor and that Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) representatives were “hovering” around the screening area, listening and engaging with the public while they waited.
The complainant alleged MSD had paid for some screening resources and that MSD’s involvement was not declared at the event or on flyers.
MSD investigated (interviews with two representatives and the event organiser) and stated the representatives did not go near or interact with screening, did not access patient information, and did not promote products.
Evidence included different versions of event posters/flyers: the complainant’s version did not show MSD’s logo; MSD’s version did. The organiser reportedly said there were ~4 versions.
MSD’s support was documented as a joint working agreement, but the Panel noted inconsistencies between the agreement (which described broader support) and MSD’s account (funding limited to LDX machines/consumables for cholesterol testing).
The Panel considered the representatives attended in a professional capacity (one attended at a manager’s suggestion; the other described it as relationship development), but they wore casual clothes and no MSD badges, and there was no briefing material for their attendance.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 15.2: the complainant did not establish (on the balance of probabilities) that representatives actively engaged with patient screening.
No breach of Clause 15.9: although the Panel was concerned there was no briefing material for a public-facing event, it did not amount to a breach given the wording of the clause.
Breach of Clause 9.10: sponsorship/involvement was not clearly declared as required; a logo next to “Working towards healthier living in partnership with:” was not considered a clear declaration of sponsorship, and the company could not provide a copy of the alleged registration-desk notice.
Breach of Clause 9.1: overall high standards were not maintained (driven by the Panel’s criticisms about representative conduct/identification and the failure to clearly disclose involvement).
No breach of Clause 2: the Panel did not consider the matter brought discredit upon or reduced confidence in the industry.

🔒

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