Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19854
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: Magazine
Pharmaceutical sponsorship of practice newsletters called into question
Medical Forum 2002 Dec10
Full text:
Following a complaint to AGPAL and the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (APMA) Code of Conduct Committee, Your Health practice newsletter produced by Dr Colin Mendelson in NSW has been forced to alter its content to exclude mention of pharmaceutical products.
The commercial newsletter, sponsored by Pfizer Pty Ltd, has regularly mentioned pharmaceutical products in its quarterly editions, including favourable comment about the products of its sponsor.
Direct to consumer marketing of prescription-only, non-PBS drugs is common place amongst pharmaceutical companies these days. Media releases, websites and other marketing strategies are all part of the strategy, designed to influence consumers to pressure their GP to prescribe.
The most flagrant example is the TV ads run by the manufacturers of Xenical that parade obese people and state, “Sometimes exercise and diet are not enough…talk to your GP”.
Your Health’s edition 13, as one example, contained an article on osteoarthritis, outlining “an exciting new type of arthritis medication”, then later; “Celebrex [Pfizer], the first of the new COX-2 inhibitors, is just as effective as the old anti-inflammatory drugs but does not cause stomach or kidney upsets. It is a major advance in the treatment of all types of arthritis and will be of special benefit to patients who cannot tolerate existing medication. It is not yet government subsidised, and requires a private script”.
The complaint to AGPAL over Your Health’s editorial content centred around Accrediation Standard 1.2 which states that general practice newsletters “should not contain advertising or endorsements”. In theory, breaches of this code should disqualify practices from accreditation and access to PIP payments.
AGPAL has responded by now stipulating that practice newsletters must not contain either generic or brand names.
Even though the content of Your Health clearly breached the APMA Code of Conduct, the Code of Conduct Committee has declined to reprimand Pfizer because it could not prove a direct link between sponsor and newsletter content.
During its deliberations, the Committee unanimously expressed concern at the poor quality of content of one sample of Your Health, noting Pfizer had admitted its product statements were contrary to its own standards.
The Committee said published statements about Celebrex were inaccurate, encouraged indiscriminate use of the product and could lead to patient harm. Some Committee members questioned the independence and competency of the editorial board of the publication.
Concern was also expressed the AGPAL should have taken some responsibility for monitoring the standards and content of its accredited practice newsletters (of which Your Health is just one).
APMA’s Marketing Committee will be asked to review the APMA Code to cover sponsorship of practice newsletters.
The current Code of Conduct states:
9.4 Promotion to the General Public…“Any activity directed towards the general public which encourages a patient to seek a prescription for a specific prescription-only product is unacceptable”.
9.5.2 Patient Education. “The educational material should not focus on a particular product, unless the material is intended to be given to the patient by a health care professional after the decision to prescribe that product has been made”.
“Examples of patient educational material which might be considered to breach the Code include: a) Use of trade names except as described in Section 9.5.2”.
In an interesting twist, competing national practice newsletter Health News, based in WA, has published its annual survey of subscribers across Australia – results suggest practices value the independence of newsletter health information.
When 186 Health News subscribers (123 urban, 63 rural) were asked if they would consider a reduction in subscription in return for health product advertising (as an insert to their newsletter), a minority of practices endorsed the idea (31% urban, 23% rural).
Instead, practice image was the prime motivator for continuing with the newsletter – newsletter quality and favourable patient comment were most important (52% urban, 48% rural) compared to convenience (23% urban, 19% rural) and time-saving (7% urban, 11% rural). The need to meet accreditation requirements rated rather low (18% urban, 22% rural).
