AUTH/2959/5/17: Patient recruitment ‘finder’s fee’ for market research email (Bayer) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2959/5/17
Complainant	Head of medicines management at a health board (on behalf of the health board)
Company	Bayer
Issue	Email from a market research recruitment agency offering a “finder’s fee” to recruit NVAF patients for a 15-minute telephone interview
Products mentioned	Xarelto (rivaroxaban), Lixiana (edoxaban), Eliquis (apixaban), Pradaxa (dabigatran)
Payments	£30 patient honorarium; £50 physician fee per qualifying patient (paid for patients who completed the survey)
Key concerns raised	Potential inducement to breach confidentiality; potential misuse of NHS time/resources; third-party email content/controls
Panel finding	No breach; not disguised promotion; payment not unreasonable; recruitment method not inappropriate; no evidence of NHS resource misuse
Clauses considered	2, 7.2, 9.1, 18.1
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	25 May 2017
Case completed	31 July 2017
Appeal	No appeal

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 head of medicines management at a health board complained about an email sent by a market research recruitment agency to a hospital consultant/cardiologist.
The email subject referenced a “Finders Fee for recruitment of patients with AF”.
The project sought patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated for stroke prevention with one of four anticoagulants for at least 3 months: Xarelto (rivaroxaban), Lixiana (edoxaban), Eliquis (apixaban) and Pradaxa (dabigatran).
Patients would complete a 15-minute telephone interview; patients would receive an honorarium of £30 and physicians would receive £50 per qualifying patient.
The complainant alleged the arrangement could induce inappropriate behaviour (eg, passing on patient details/breaching confidentiality) and could lead to misuse of NHS time/resources, especially by inexperienced HCPs.
The recruitment email used was not the version Bayer had examined/approved; Bayer said it was sent by the recruitment agency without Bayer approval and recruitment was put on hold while Bayer investigated.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
The Panel did not consider the market research to be disguised promotion.
The Panel did not consider the payment unreasonable or an inducement to prescribe.
The Panel did not consider the recruitment method inappropriate and found no evidence of misuse of NHS time/resources.

🔒

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