APPENDIX 39
Supplementary memorandum by GlaxoSmithKline
(PI 132)
COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE INSTITUTE FOR
SOCIAL MARKETING ANALYSIS OF MARKETING DOCUMENTS
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) supports the need for
regulation of the advertising and promotion of medicines, and
specifically supports self regulation under the PMCPA Code of
Practice. Regrettably, the company has, on occasions, been found
to be in breach of the Code of Practice. These breaches are taken
extremely seriously by the company and are always reviewed to
ensure that similar breaches do not recur. If these breaches involve
the action of an individual acting contrary to instruction, disciplinary
action is always taken.
In respect of the analysis of industry marketing
practices undertaken for the Committee by the Institute for Social
Marketing, we are unable to respond in great detail given the
generality of the analysis and conclusions.
We are disappointed to note, however, that the
authors have chosen to entitle their analysis "Dealing in
Drugs". This is somewhat ironic, since they are particularly
critical of anything they perceive to be the use of emotive language
in industry's promotional efforts. Our view as to the appropriateness
of the title can best be summed up by quoting from the ISM's authors
themselves; that is to say, "words like `objective' and `balanced'
sit uncomfortably with . . . techniques . . . which play on patently
subjective feelings and emotions", as this title appears
to be intended to do.
The Institute for Social Marketing's analysis
is based on a large amount of information supplied to the Committee
by GSK and by other companies. We do not immediately recognise
the instances portrayed in the 15-page analysis as representing
material supplied by GSK. Our preliminary analysis, however, suggests
that some if not all of the analysis is based on a fundamental
misapprehension of the nature of the Code and the legal framework
that underpins it.
Marketing, and other forms of promotion, exist
to increase sales of products beyond the level that would occur
if such activity did not take place. Companies would not otherwise
engage in this activity. This is entirely legitimate. Neither
the Code of Practice, nor the Medicines Act, nor the EU Directive
on the Advertising and Promotion of Medicines prohibits this activity;
rather they regulate it. However, the Institute for Social Marketing
analysis appears to be based in part on an assumption that any
activity designed to increase the level of sales of a company's
products is, by definition, in breach of the Code. This assumption
is simply incorrect. The ISM analysis also seems rooted in a philosophical
standpoint that anything done by a company with the intention
of encouraging the use of its medicines and which benefits that
company is inherently wrong. We disagree entirely with such a
standpoint. ISM's report is based on muddled thinking and an incorrect
appreciation of the regulatory framework, and this therefore calls
into question the reliability of the report's conclusions.
Carried out responsibly, promoting the use of
medicines serves not merely the interests of pharmaceutical companies,
but is also of benefit to patients and to the UK. Modern medicines
can improve the quality and length of life and allow major diseases
to be treated without the need for in-patient hospital care. They
can allow patients to remain economically active, when they would
otherwise be dependent on carers or social services. Medicines
are therefore part of the solution, not part of the problem for
the NHS. Indeed, the problem in the UK is not the widespread over-use
of new medicines, but rather the opposite. Research clearly shows
that UK uptake of new medicines is about one quarter of that in
the average of comparable countries one year after launch, and
remains low thereafter. Put simply, compared to many of their
European or American counterparts, UK patients get poorer or later
access to life-saving or life-enhancing new drugs.
The Institute for Social Marketing's report
also seems to have assumed that the analyses companies use to
inform their marketing campaigns are the same as the execution
of those campaigns. Implementation of campaigns is subject to
the Code of Practice and the Medicines Act, but the thinking that
informs those campaigns, as outlined in some of the documents
provided to the Committee, may well not be.
The Institute for Social Marketing's analysis
also appears to find it blameworthy that industry would want to
use public relations to counter criticism of medicines in the
media—criticism that can often be factually incorrect and
therefore unnecessarily distressing to patients who rely on those
treatments. It would be astonishing if a company did not to seek
to defend itself or its products from unwarranted attacks, and
we believe such activity to be entirely legitimate.
| 
