Merck Serono call-rate targets: pressure for “6 calls/contacts per day” and uncertified field briefings (AUTH/2756/5/15)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2756/5/15
Parties	Anonymous employee v Merck Serono
Issue	Call rates / contact-rate targets and certification of field briefings
Product referenced	Rebif (interferon beta-1a)
Complaint received	7 May 2015
Case completed	24 July 2015
Applicable Code year	2015
Breach clauses	15.2, 15.4, 15.9
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Appeal	No appeal
Field force context	8 neurology KAMs; ~50–60 MS specialists per territory; March 2015 had 22 working days (Panel calculation: 6 contacts/day ≈ 132 contacts/month)

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 employee complained that, after a neurology leadership change (Jan 2015), the neurology sales team was targeted to see six prescribing customers daily.
What began as a March 2015 “additional incentive” (30% KPI incentive linked to achieving 6 contacts/day) was alleged to have become an ongoing required activity standard, with weekly activity reporting and follow-up emails to individuals who missed the target.
Territories reportedly had ~50–60 MS consultants and nurse specialists each (8 KAMs total), raising concerns that the target would drive unnecessary contact and inconvenience to HCPs.
Emails from management (including 30 April and 2 May 2015) used inconsistent terminology (“calls” vs “contacts”), pushed for volume, and did not consistently remind staff of Code constraints.
At least two key emails used as field force briefings (20 March and 2 May) were not certified before distribution.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found of Clauses 15.2, 15.4 and 15.9.
The Panel concluded the March “incentive” operated in reality as a requirement and that meeting it would, on the balance of probabilities, lead to Code breaches due to likely inconvenience and inadequate/unclear guidance.
The Panel found that representatives were not given comprehensive and consistent guidance on achieving 6 contacts/day while remaining compliant, including failure to clearly distinguish expected call rates vs contact rates.
The Panel ruled that briefing material had been sent to representatives prior to certification.
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