AUTH/3138/12/18 - Ex-employee v Indivior

Non-disclosure of transfers of value

  • Received
    20 December 2018
  • Case number
    AUTH/3138/12/18
  • Applicable Code year
    2016
  • Completed
    19 August 2019
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
    Advertisement
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    May 2020

Case Summary

 

An ex-employee of Indivior complained that in 2017 the company had not disclosed payments made to health professionals, donations or sponsorships in the UK.

The detailed response from Indivior is given below.

The Panel noted that the Code required companies to document and publicly disclose certain transfers of value made directly or indirectly to health professionals and healthcare organisations located in Europe; in the UK, this had to be via a central platform.

The Panel noted Indivior’s submission that a previous senior employee had agreed for Indivior to join the list of non-member companies which had agreed to comply with the Code and accept the jurisdiction of the Authority.  The Panel was very concerned that this decision had not been more broadly communicated throughout the company; this information only became apparent to those currently employed with the company from April 2019 in relation to this complaint.

Indivior was required by the Code, due to its status from June 2017 to disclose 2017 transfers of value to UK health professionals and UK healthcare organisations on the central platform by the end of June 2018, however, the Panel noted that Indivior had failed to do so and therefore it ruled a breach of the Code as acknowledged by the company. 

The Panel noted Indivior’s submission that it had documented all disclosures for 2015 onwards and had (and would) retain those records for at least five years after the end of the calendar year to which they related.  The complainant had provided no evidence to the contrary and therefore the Panel ruled no breach of the Code with regard to the retention of data in relation to the 2017 transfers of value. 

The Panel noted its comments and rulings above and considered that Indivior had failed to maintain high standards and a further breach of the Code was ruled.

The Panel noted that Clause 2 was a sign of particular censure and was reserved for such use.  Despite Indivior’s submission that it had always sought to comply with the spirit of the Code there had been no public disclosure of the 2017 transfers of value on the central platform as required.  In the Panel’s view, transparency in relation to transfers of value to health professionals and healthcare organisations was of the utmost importance to the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry.  The Panel considered, on balance, that Indivior had brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the industry for its failure to publicly disclose any of its 2017 transfers of value to health professionals and healthcare organisations and it ruled a breach of Clause 2.