|
|
BY OUR PHARMA CORRESPONDENT
5 August, 2005: The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI), the collective voice of the UK’s pharmaceutical industry has initiated efforts to understand the views stakeholders and advocacy groups on the Code of Practice.
ABPI is currently in the process of reviewing its Code of Practice for the pharmaceutical industry in an attempt include certain new provisions.
With the help of independent polling firm, Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS), the ABPI sought opinions from 27 stakeholders through face-to-face, or telephone interviews. The interviewees were considered “industry active” and interacted with the pharma industry in variety of ways. They were asked for their views on such issues as: governance, independence, complaints and sanctions, aims, content, scope, the `ideal' Code, as well as communications.
The results showed that these stakeholders seek a “Code that will be transparent” and for which “awareness and understanding will be high”. It was recognised that a Code of Practice is a complex idea to realise, and that there would still be areas where there are `no easy answers'. However, those interviewed believed that there were several key areas where improvements could be made to the Code, to bring it more in line with the modern-day pharma business environment.
Among the many findings:
- the industry often receives poor press and has a reputation in public of being secretive and unscrupulous
- the ABPI should be “mindful” of the changes in social attitudes to the acceptance by the medical profession of gifts/hospitality
- self-regulatory governance, in adherence to a Code, is acceptable, provided that there is strict monitoring and that sanctions for rule-breaking are a “real” deterrent (suggestions for sanctions included fines, public apologies and cessation of marketing activities; public shaming was also considered as a possibility).
Regarding the aims of the reformed Code:
- the Code should aim to ensure ethical and transparent working relationships between the industry and stakeholder organisations, as well as protect or `benefit' the patients and provide a level playing field for the industry
- the update Code should not restrain advocacy stakeholders from working `in true partnership' with the industry.
The interviewees has also been asked about what should be the content and coverage of the new Code, and this question drew out the most passionate differences of opinion. The key issue was the possible role of the pharma industry as a provider of healthcare information to the public.
One school of thought supported the industry's contribution in this respect, while others (yet a less common view) thought that commercial interests would prevent the industry from ever being “truly impartial and non-promotional”. Some stakeholders felt that the current Code “prevents information from reaching the public”, says a press communiqué in ABPI’s website.
An executive summary of the findings, plus those from eight interviews and three focus groups with representatives of patient advocacy groups, can be viewed on the ABPI's website, at:
http://www.abpi.org.uk/
BY OUR PHARMA CORRESPONDENT
|
