Bayer HealthCare: HSJ bound-in supplement found to disguise promotional nature and inadequately declare sponsorship (AUTH/2735/9/14)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2735/9/14
Complainant	Doctor in public health
Company	Bayer HealthCare
Material	Eight-page sponsored supplement: “Venous Thromboembolism – Unblock the System, How to treat DVT in the Community”
Publication / distribution	Bound insert in Health Service Journal (HSJ), 5 September 2014
Product referenced	Xarelto (rivaroxaban)
Main issue	Sponsorship not sufficiently prominent “at the outset” for a bound-in supplement; promotional nature considered disguised due to resemblance to editorial pages
Applicable Code year	2014
Clauses breached	9.10 and 12.1
Clause not breached	9.1
Complaint received	28 September 2014
Case completed	27 November 2014
Appeal	No appeal
Sanction	Undertaking received

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 doctor in public health complained about an eight-page sponsored supplement: “Venous Thromboembolism – Unblock the System, How to treat DVT in the Community”, sponsored by Bayer HealthCare.
The supplement was distributed as a bound insert stapled into the Health Service Journal (HSJ) on 5 September 2014.
Bayer branding and a sponsorship declaration appeared on page 1; the Bayer logo also appeared on page 2. Prescribing information for Xarelto (rivaroxaban) appeared on page 8.
The supplement contained four articles (service redesign, two GP case studies, and a charity perspective).
The complainant alleged that if a reader opened the supplement at the centre spreads (pages 4–5 or 6–7), there was no indication it was sponsored by Bayer, and it resembled HSJ editorial content.
Bayer argued there was no requirement to declare sponsorship on every page and pointed to the declaration on page 1, logos on pages 1–2, the “Health Service Journal supplement” footer on pages 2–7, and prescribing information on page 8.
The Panel noted Bayer had suggested interviewees/centres to HSJ; some suggested health professionals had attended Bayer advisory boards. The Panel was concerned the sponsorship declaration did not make the extent of Bayer’s involvement clear.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 12.1 (promotional material must not be disguised).
Breach of Clause 9.10 (sponsored material must clearly indicate sponsorship; declaration not sufficiently prominent at the outset for a bound-in supplement).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards).
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