Merck Serono breach over MS nurse call frequency driven by 6-contacts/day target (AUTH/2754/5/15)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2754/5/15
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable nurse (described as senior MS nurse specialist)
Company	Merck Serono Limited
Issue	Call/contact frequency; visits often without appointment; additional attendees
Product mentioned	Rebif (interferon beta-1a)
Incentive/target	Target of 6 contacts/day (stated as March 2015 “short-term fix”; emails suggested continuation beyond March)
Applicable Code year	2015
Complaint received	05 May 2015
Case completed	24 July 2015
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 15.2; Clause 15.4
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, non-contactable complainant (described as a senior MS nurse specialist in an NHS trust) complained that Merck Serono representatives visited very frequently, often without an appointment.
The complainant said visits were made more inconvenient by additional attendees (described as managerial, medical, marketing and administrative staff) and that requests to stop bringing extra visitors were ignored and visits increased.
The complainant alleged the additional visitors threatened patient confidentiality and were against trust policy; colleagues reportedly had similar experiences.
Merck Serono said competitive pressure led to a time-limited incentive (1–31 March 2015) targeting 6 contacts/day with MS customers; it said most calls were solicited and accompanied visits were infrequent and pre-arranged.
The Panel reviewed CRM data, market research and internal emails and concluded the contact frequency increased and that internal communications implied the 6 contacts/day expectation continued beyond March.
The Panel was concerned that KAMs were not given comprehensive, consistent guidance distinguishing “call” vs “contact” rates and how to meet targets compliantly.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 15.4 (frequency/timing/duration/manner of calls must not cause inconvenience).
Breach found: Clause 15.2 (representatives must maintain a high standard of ethical conduct and comply with the Code).
No breach found (trust policy allegation): The Panel found no evidence that a trust policy had been breached because the complainant did not provide the policy and the burden of proof was not met.
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