Ethical Marketing Measures in Access to Medicines Index: An Important First Step
Filed under: Advertising & Lobbying, Global Health Care, Pharma
Photo by La Chiquita via Flickr
Earlier this week, the Access to Medicine Foundation released its 2010 Access to Medicine Index, “a ranking of the world´s largest pharmaceutical companies on their efforts to increase access to medicine for societies in need.”
In a change from the 2008 Index, which was the first to be issued, the 2010 Index includes measures designed to assess companies’ commitment to, and practice of, ethical marketing behavior. Per the report accompanying the Index, “[t]he marketing and promotion of drugs can have a significant influence on the type of medicines that patients receive. Particularly in Index Countries [88 countries with low or medium levels of development] with less robust regulatory enforcement and consumer protection, the marketing behavior of pharmaceutical companies can shape access to both appropriate and affordable medicines. Unethical marketing can lead to suboptimal clinical decisions, prescription of more expensive drugs and irrational use of medicines by consumers, which can result in reduced treatment efficacy and other complications, such as adverse drug reaction and drug resistance.”
The Index ranks pharmaceutical companies’ marketing behavior along three axes: (1) commitments, (2) transparency, and (3) performance. In the commitments category, companies are assigned points for the marketing codes and standards they have adopted and that they require their local third party sales agents to adopt. For example, “originators,” i.e., research-based pharmaceutical companies, receive 5 points on a scale of 1-5 for committing to the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, the WHO Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion, “or an equivalent industry code.” Originators that have not committed to any external codes but that have an internal code which covers the same core principles receive 2.5 points. (The scoring is different for generics on this measure because they do not have a “viable up to date and auditable external code.”) With regard to third party sales agents, both originator and generic companies can receive all 5 points if they make “specific ethical marketing demands” of their sales agents and then audit the agents’ practices to ensure compliance.
Photo by PhilieCasablanca via Flickr
For transparency, the Index gives points to companies that “publicly disclose[] detailed information regarding [their] marketing and promotional programs in the Index Countries, such as payments to physicians or other key opinion leaders and also its promotional activities for other healthcare providers, distributors, etc.” None of the companies earned any points in this category. While some have started to disclose payments made in the United States, no company has disclosed payments made in any of the Index Countries. According to the report, three companies — GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Roche — have pledged to disclose payments made in the Index Countries soon. Companies can also earn disclosure points for revealing breaches of marketing codes and marketing-related litigation in the Index Countries.
For the third category, performance, companies lose points if they breach the IFPMA Code or if they are sued or subjected to fines for marketing behavior. Companies can earn points for including binding ethical marketing requirements in their agreements with their sales agents and by establishing employee codes of conduct in the Index Countries equivalent to the codes they have in place in other markets. Despite the fact that issues have been raised “about pharmaceutical marketing practices in the Index Countries, especially regarding clear mention of … adverse side effects,” none of the companies studied lost any points in this category.
As the title of this post suggests, I think that the Index’s attempt to rank companies’ commitment to and practice of ethical marketing practices is important. Anyone who works in a law school knows how influential rankings can be — for better or for worse. It is easy to imagine the Access to Medicine rankings providing an additional nudge to companies to begin disclosing payments to healthcare providers around the world not just here in the United States. At the same time, there is ample room for refinement. In the performance category, for example, measures, in addition to breaching the IFPMA Code/being sued/ being fined, are needed to expose differences that surely exist in companies’ approaches to marketing in the Index Countries.
Posts from Health Reform Watch have been cited by media sources throughout the country, including The New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Kaiser Health News, The Health Care Blog, NPR's Planet Money Blog, Duke Univ. Med. Center News, American Health Line Alerts, BusinessWeek.com, Concurring Opinions, Balkinization, The New England Journal of Medicine, Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism, Las Vegas Sun, Maggie Mahar, Ezra Klein, Tom Geoghegan, and the official homepage of the Office of the Democratic Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer.
