Consumers question GMiA
October 8, 2010
THE Consumers Health Forum
(CHF) has joined the chorus of
voices currently questioning the
Generic Medicines Industry
Association’s (GMiA) stance against
the ACCC’s proposed condition C2
on its draft Code of Conduct, which
would require its member
companies to report every six
months on the value of all benefits,
such as hospitality, entertainment
and gifts provided to pharmacists.
In backing up its stance against
the condition GMiA told the ACCC
that it did not believe that the
“trivial and non-existent” public
benefit would outweigh the
“significant compliance costs” that
generating the six-monthly
reportage would entail.
In response to this submission
the CHF said that it did not consider
GMiA had provided compelling
enough arguments against the
imposition of condition C2.
The CHF then used the wording
by GMiA in its ACCC rebuttal to
support its own pro-C2 argument,
saying that the statement: “GMiA
believes that pharmacists do not
recommend a particular generic
medicine to a patient solely
because of the provision of an
educational event or other nonprice
benefits...”, is not sufficient to
warrant scrapping the condition
because it is an argument based on
a “belief” not hard evidence.
Moreover GMiA’s assertion that
the public will not get an accurate
picture of all the reasons why a
certain generic is recommended by
a pharmacist if companies have to
detail their pharmacist gifting
practices, was also brought in to
question, with the CHF saying that
“pharmacists should be willing to
discuss with consumers why they
chose generic substitution is
appropriate, and to explain the
factors that led to that decision”.
In addition, the CHF also said
that “an unwillingness on behalf of
the industry to report non-price
benefits may create a perception of
a lack of transparency, between
pharmacists and the generic
medicines industry, potentially causing
a loss of confidence and trust”.
In its submission to the ACCC the
CHF also said that GMiA’s assertion
that reportage would be of limited
value to consumers was sketchy as
it knowledge GMiA has not
consulted with consumers to
ascertain their views on the value of
this information.
“CHF’s position is that consumers
will benefit from increased
transparency in the relationship
between the generic medicines
industry and pharmacists,” it said
in its statement.
In closing the CHF questioned
GMiA’s argument that “the current
level of non-price benefits as a
proportion of total benefits provided
to pharmacy by each member of
GMiA is less than 1%”.
The CHF said that as no
information was provided as to how
the figure was reached, it would be
“interested” to know the basis for
the calculation “particularly given
the difficulties outlined in GMiA’s 8
September 2010 submission in
relation to collecting information
about non-price benefits and placing
a financial value on these benefits”.
The CHF also questioned whether
the administrative and compliance
costs would be as “significant” as
argued by GMiA.
The above article was sent to subscribers in Pharmacy Daily's issue from 08 Oct 10To see the full newsletter, see the embedded issue below or CLICK HERE to download Pharmacy Daily from 08 Oct 10
