The Do’s and Don’ts of Compliant Product Promotion

In keeping with our mission of helping you reduce risk and strengthen your compliance culture, we present our top do’s and don’ts for promoting products to healthcare professionals:

  1. Do…be balanced and accurate! Present the benefits and the risks of a product equally.
    Don’t…omit or minimize the risks associated with the use of a product, or exaggerate its effectiveness.
  2. Do…stay on-label! All promotional statements about a product must adhere to the product label.
    Don’t…promote any off-label uses of a product.
  3. Do…use approved promotional materials! Use promotional materials provided and approved by the company to promote a product.
    Don’t…Use retired promotional materials or create your own materials to promote a product. Do not add logos, names or other product information to candies, cookies, or other items, without prior approval.
  4. Do…be careful about comparisons! Only share competing product information that has been approved by the company.
    Don’t…Make unsubstantiated comparative claims about a competitor’s product.
  5. Do…spread the knowledge! Share approved scientific publications or journal reprints with healthcare professionals.
    Don’t…alter any approved publications before you share them with the approved audience.

Thanks for reading!

Compliance News in Review, December 12, 2016

If you’re dancing “The Beagle,” and you can’t break away from all of the movies starring Candace Cameron Bure on the Hallmark Channel, it can only mean one thing; it’s Christmas time! Despite what Staples would have you believe, THIS is the Most Wonderful Time of the Year. Before you fill your heads with dreams of sugarplums, we have a quick yuletide tale to share. Gather round friends to hear the tome; our newsy, Compliance News in Review Christmas poem.

T’was the News before Christmas, and all through the land,

Our readers waited for the first story at hand.

The story was chosen with the utmost of care,

In the hopes of bringing joy and not causing despair.

In Congress a healthcare bill was just passed,

But not without a change that left some hopes dashed.

Despite efforts to exempt, companies will still report

Payments for textbooks, reprints and speaking fees of a sort.

Senators exclaimed the payments we must heed

With the exemption removed, the bill passed with ease.

With the healthcare bill passed and well on its way,

We will move on to news from Californ-i-a.

Away went a bill in the last governing session,

Requiring disclosure of drug pricing information.

Not one to give up, an intrepid senator said,

“I’ll make minor changes. This bill is not dead!”

Change his bill he did, and returned it to the floor.

Companies must report price hikes of 25% or more. (if passed)

Then over at Teva there arose such a clatter!

We wondered out loud what could be the matter?

After one bribery investigation and setting aside cash

A tip came in – to Romania Teva should dash!

Bribes of travel and consulting fees were paid.

Teva is investigating all of these claims.

On the “nice” list of St. Nick we all hope to be,

But this group of execs will be found on “naughty.”

Six from Insys were arrested for inducements

Paid to docs to write scripts for unapproved uses.

The former CEO is one of the six, yes really.

His lawyer exclaimed he would plead “not guilty.”

Others in trouble are from marketing and sales.

Don’t buy the business is the moral of this tale.

With that last story our tale must come to an end.

We’ve enjoyed sharing it with you our dear friends.

So until we return with more news and insights,

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

Compliance News in Review, August 19, 2016

The Pfizer shareholder suit settlement, Open Payments Open Forum, Robert Callif addresses sharing truthful off-label information, a whistleblower suit, and it’s always Sunshiney in Germany in this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

Dum, dum, da, dum, dum, dum, dum. Dum dum da dum dum dum dum da dum dum dum dum. No doubt you recognized that familiar melody as “Bugler’s Dream” (a.k.a., the Olympic theme). The games in Rio are in full effect! If you’re like us, you’re suffering from sleep deprivation from all the hours of late night coverage. Fear not, we haven’t completely forgone compliance news in favor of sport. Take your mark, because we’re about to start this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

Pfizer is setting aside $486 million in “gold medals” to resolve the shareholder suit over concealing the safety risks of Bextra and Celebrex. The settlement is pending approval of the shareholders, and if approved, will end 11 years of litigation.

Open Payments is back on the track and poised for changes. In July, CMS posed several questions in the proposed 2017 Physician Fee schedule. The agency held an Open Door Forum for Open Payment stakeholders to provide responses to these questions. Much of the discussion focused on the reporting and reviewing of information related to teaching hospitals and whether to increase the number of payment categories. Other topics included pre-vetting data; the review and dispute process; and whether user accounts for physicians can be structured so they don’t expire after six months of inactivity.

A whistleblower claims Celgene isn’t playing the game fairly. A suit filed by a former company sales rep claims the company made donations in order to drive product sales. The suit claims the company made donations and then worked with the charities to assure that the majority of the funds were directed to patients who were using Celgene drugs. Celgene says the claims are baseless and the federal rules regarding donations were followed.

FDA chief Robert Califf spent time hurdling the issue of sharing of truthful off-label information at the recent BIO conference. In his remarks, Mr. Califf said scientifically supported information worth sharing should be on the product’s label, and that there is a responsibility to share use information gleaned through the clinical trial process and it’s reasonable to expect that information to be part of the product’s label. He noted that publicly available information that is not part of the label is trickier, and that the agency was “working on it.”

The score from the German judge is…575 million. According to the German news magazine Spiegel, payments made to German HCPs and HCOs totaled 575 million euro in 2015. The country made the data public in a searchable database following a suggestion by EFPIA. The magazine noted problems with the data being incomplete and inaccurate, and only 75% of pharmaceutical companies were represented. It called for the German government to consider legislation similar to the Sunshine Act in order to implement true transparency.

Well, we need to get back to the thousands of hours of streaming coverage – bring on the table tennis – so we’ll end this edition of the Compliance News in Review here. Enjoy the rest of the Games everyone, and stay compliant.

To Use Employees as Actors for Compliance Training or Not: That is the Question

Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage,” but when that stage is your training video, should your colleagues be the players? Before taking the leap and giving employees their “fifteen minutes,” you need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages and determine how each approach could help or hurt the effectiveness of your compliance curriculum. At PharmaCertify™, we have differing opinions based on first-hand experiences developing compliance training and corporate video programs. Here’s where two of us landed.

The Case for Using Employees as Actors
Lauren Barnett, Compliance Content Specialist

One obvious reason to use employees in your compliance training is the cost. Actors, even non-union ones, are expensive. Depending on the level of the skill the actor brings to the table, the cost of talent can be one of the top expenses in your video. A video shoot can last anywhere from a few hours to a few days, depending on the requirements of your project, so using the “free labor” you have at your fingertips can have a significant impact on the overall cost of the project.

Businesses and industries often have their own jargon. Add the medical or product-specific lingo that may need to be included in the training, and understanding the script for your compliance video could be like learning a new language. Your colleagues will be more authentic when delivering jargon-laden lines on camera. Actors won’t have the contextual experience with the language to deliver lines naturally or with confidence. Your learners do have familiarity with the language and they’ll notice when the actors aren’t comfortable and the learning will suffer.

Finally, using employees from the compliance department, or other departments the learners only interact with on a remote level, humanizes those departments and has the potential to build a stronger rapport between compliance and the rest of the company. Too often, the compliance department is seen in a negative light, or as the “police,” who are just waiting for employees to do something wrong. A truly effective compliance training curriculum addresses that concern, and includes components designed to portray those responsible for policy and training as partners who are there to support, encourage and inform. Using team members as actors in the compliance training is one major step toward that goal.

The Case Against Using Employees as Actors
Sean Murphy, Product and Marketing Manager

You may see your coworkers as free talent, but they aren’t professional talent. Acting is an art and a skill, and the fact an employee “was in a play in high school,” doesn’t necessarily mean that colleague is a trained actor. Good actors, even those working in local theater, have typically trained for years in their craft. You might get lucky and have a gem or two in your free talent pool, but when you use someone who is not comfortable or experienced, you run the risk of the key messages being lost behind the bad acting.

You also have to consider the cost to the business in lost productivity when employees are spending their time trying to convincingly read lines. Video shoots are time-consuming (especially when multiple takes are required because the actors are not professionals) and often require the actors to be “on set” for a number of hours. When your colleagues are pulled away from their jobs for that extended period of time, others may have to do their work, or they will at least have to book extra hours to make up the work they missed.

Finally, yes, employees can add an air of authenticity to your video, but it comes with the risk of your learners focusing on the fact they are watching “Bill from Marketing” in a video. Your key training messages may be lost because the learner’s attention is focused on the fact that is “Bill from Marketing,” instead of the subject matter. Additionally, if the audience includes vendors, they won’t know Bill, so he’s just another actor for them, so any authenticity is lost, and if Bill isn’t a good actor, he’s now a distraction as well.

What’s Your Verdict?

Using colleagues as actors can add an element of authenticity and fun to your training videos and can certainly help with the budget department. Before moving ahead in casting colleagues, it is important to consider the training goals of the video and determine if using colleagues will serve those goals or will simply be a distraction.

Now, we want to know what you think. Have you tried using your coworkers as actors in your compliance training? Did it work well? What were the pitfalls? Do you agree with Lauren or Sean? Who gets the bragging rights this time? Contact Sean at smurphy@nxlevelsolutions.com to let us know.