AUTH/3200/5/19: Director/Media v Napp – arrangements for a New York meeting (2002) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3200/5/19
Case reference	Director/Media v Napp
Complainant	Director (public criticism via BBC media)
Respondent/company	Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited
Product(s)	Not stated
Material/channel	BBC Radio 4 File on 4 broadcast and BBC website article; meeting arrangements (New York)
Key issue	Appropriateness of overseas meeting arrangements and hospitality/entertainment (Broadway tickets; alleged helicopter trip) and resulting industry discredit
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 21 May 2019; Case completed 3 April 2020
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	2001 Code applied (meeting appeared to have taken place in 2002)
Breaches/clauses	Clause 19.1 (breach); Clause 18.1 (breach); Clause 9.1 (breach); Clause 2 (breach)
Sanctions	No explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

Download the full case report (PDF)

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

📋

What happened

⌄

A BBC Radio 4 programme (File on 4) broadcast in May 2019 and a BBC website article titled ‘Doctors used as “guinea pigs” in opioid painkiller promotion’ criticised Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited, including a Napp-sponsored meeting held in New York.
Under the PMCPA Constitution and Procedure, public criticism was taken up by the Director and treated as a complaint under the Code.
The broadcast/article described UK pain specialists being taken to New York with hospitality and entertainment (including upscale dining and Broadway shows) paid for by Napp; the meeting was described as an “educational package”.
A health professional interviewed in the programme later told the PMCPA they believed the overseas meeting occurred in spring 2002, lasted five days, included visits to New York hospitals, dinner (including an end-of-course dinner at the top of the Rockefeller Centre), an invitation to a Broadway show, and a helicopter trip around Manhattan.
Napp said its archive contained no original certified materials for the meeting and relevant financial records had been destroyed in 2013; it relied largely on the recollection of one remaining employee and could not verify all details.
Napp understood around 15 pain specialist delegates attended (with up to four Napp staff) and said the primary purpose was educational: exchange of ideas/clinical best practice between UK and US pain specialists, including visiting US pain clinics for practical demonstrations.
Napp said it was not aware of arranging the helicopter tour; it understood tickets might have been arranged for one Broadway show.
Napp submitted it did not believe it had ever been its practice to monitor individual doctor prescribing and said it did not have the capacity to do so; it stated UK prescribing information was purchased from a third-party provider which confirmed individual prescriber-level data was not provided to companies.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

The Panel considered the meeting appeared to have taken place in 2002, so the 2001 Code applied.
On the limited evidence, the Panel considered there appeared to be an educational element, and there was insufficient evidence to establish whether the meeting content failed the “clear educational content” requirement; no breach was ruled on that narrow point.
However, the Panel ruled it was not acceptable (in 2002) to take approximately 15 UK health professionals to New York for five days for what appeared, on limited information, to be a company promotional meeting; Napp’s stated aims did not of themselves justify the overseas venue and duration. A breach was ruled.
On the balance of probabilities, the Panel decided Broadway tickets had been arranged; it ruled that providing entertainment such as Broadway theatre tickets/trips would have been unacceptable under the Code in 2002. Breaches were ruled.
The Panel ruled that high standards had not been maintained and that the activities brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry (Clause 2 breach).
Post-hoc note in the report: At the conclusion of the case, Napp advised it is a company independent of, but associated with, Purdue Pharma.

📖

Clauses

⌄

2001 Code Clause 19.1 (hospitality/meetings; including overseas venues requiring valid and cogent reasons; hospitality must be secondary and not out of proportion): Breach (overseas venue/duration and arrangements; and in relation to entertainment).
2001 Code Clause 18.1 (prohibition on gifts/benefits in kind as an inducement): Breach (entertainment such as Broadway theatre tickets/trips).
2001 Code Clause 9.1 (high standards): Breach.
2001 Code Clause 2 (discredit/reduced confidence): Breach.

🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

AUTH/3200/5/19: Director/Media v Napp – arrangements for a New York meeting (2002)

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown