GSK cleans up its act
January 15, 2016
In WHAT is described by the
company as a “first of its kind”
move, pharmaceutical giant
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has decided
to change the way it deals with
healthcare professionals.
Taking effect since 01 Jan,
the new measures mean that
healthcare professionals will no
longer be paid directly to speak on
GSK’s behalf, all medical education
will be independent of GSK and
there will be increased peer-topeer
discussions with GSK medical
experts, the company said.
GSK Australia Pharmaceuticals
medical director Dr Andrew Weekes
said these changes are the latest
steps in a decade-long journey to
reform GSK’s business model.
“Whilst we implement innovative
ways to meet the information
needs of doctors we need to be
mindful that information provided
by industry may be perceived as
conflicted.
“Strengthening the GSK medical
team to include staff that are peers
of the audiences they speak to is
an important step in responding to
this concern,” he added.
“Increased transparency about
when GSK is providing education
and when the provider and
programme are completely
independent of GSK are further
steps in the right direction.
“In all of our interactions with
healthcare professionals, our
priority is to be transparent,
operate with integrity, and always
put the interests of patients first.”
In addition, sales representatives
and their managers will be
financially incentivised based on
their technical knowledge, the
quality of service they deliver
to doctors to support improved
patient care and a broader set of
business performance measures,
rather than acheivement to sales
targets, Weekes said.
MEANWH ILE, a recent study
conducted out of Monash,
Inala Indigenous Health
Service (Brisbane) and Griffith
(Southport campus) focused on
pharmaceutical industry exposure
in hospitals, dubbing it the “final
frontier”.
The research revealed that
doctors continue to hold positive
attitudes towards market-oriented
activities of the pharmaceutical
and medical device industries, they
believe that small gifts and benefits
are harmless and there is a belief
that there may be a significant
financial burden associated with
divestment of such sponsorship by
hospitals.
Industry presence may be
necessary in sponsorship of clinical
trials with appropriate governance,
the article said.
Researchers concluded health
services need to be proactive in
transitioning financial and cultural
reliance on pharmaceutical industry
sponsorship to other potentially
less harmful sources.
The above article was sent to subscribers in Pharmacy Daily's issue from 15 Jan 16To see the full newsletter, see the embedded issue below or CLICK HERE to download Pharmacy Daily from 15 Jan 16
