You are not currently logged in
| Local | |
| GMT |
Friday, 7 December 2007 07:00 GMT
EC accused of backing pharma's moves to bring in direct-to-consumer adverts
BRUSSELS, Dec 7 (APM) - Several associations have accused the European Commission of supporting pharma companies in trying to make direct-to-consumer advertising for medicinal products legal.
Four European associations representing complementary health insurance companies, independent bulletins and patients have issued a joint press release claiming: "The European Commission is supportive of the industry's moves: its 'consultations' are little more than an attempt to sway public opinion."
The press release was issued on Wednesday by the International Society of Drug Bulletins (ISDB), the Medicines in Europe Forum, Health Action International (HAI) and the Association internationale de la mutualité (AIM) and stated that Brussels was trying to overlook the "underlying risks to health" and ignore "the likely impact on the financial sustainability of Member states' public health systems."
The Medicines in Europe forum, ISDB and HAI are pursuing their campaign to put paid to any attempt by the industry to get round the ban on direct-to-consumer communication for prescription drugs.
In June, the three associations sent an open letter to the Commissioner for Industry, Günter Verheugen, complaining that the methodology of a consultation launched in April was biased in favour of the interests of the pharma industry.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The anti-advertising front considers that if companies were authorised to communicate directly with patients then the Commission's "claim to uphold the ban on advertising" for prescription drugs "would be no more than a smokescreen." In other words, authorising direct communication with patients would unleash major conflicts of interest.
The anti-advertising front is wary of any controls that might be implemented; it considers that: "Measures intended to control direct-to-consumer advertising in the United States and direct-to-prescriber advertising in Europe have clearly failed."
The four signatories argue that it is important to uphold Articles 86 and 88 of Directive 2001/83/EC that prohibit direct-to-consumer communication by pharma companies and they call on the European Commission to "uphold patients' interests above all else."
COMMISSION TAKES AFFRONT
The Commission is regularly accused of supporting the pharmaceutical industry.
During a meeting called by the HAI in Brussels in October, Christian Siebert, Head of Unit F5 of DG Enterprise, was taken to task by opponents of direct-to-consumer advertising.
The Commission was accused of not being transparent as to the composition of the Pharmaceutical Forum, an informal group comprising the Commission, Member states, MEPs and stakeholders. The Forum meets to discuss possible advances in a number of fields, particularly patient information.
Christian Siebert defended the Commission's choices, explaining that it would not have been easy to invite all patient associations and consequently it was the European Patient's Forum (EPF) that had been invited, considered as the "broadest and most representative."
As for criticism suggesting the Commission is biased, Siebert had retorted that it was insulting "to believe that officials of the Commission are just 'an extension' of the pharmaceutical industry.
Communication relating to medicinal products is an ever-recurring issue in Brussels.
Some years ago, a pilot-scheme for asthma, diabetes and HIV/AIDS treatments came to grief when the European Parliament vetoed it.
However, the subject sprang up again in 2005, when the Commission set up the Pharmaceutical Forum and that was followed by the public consultation launched in April.
pw/aki/ns
[9467] 07/12/2007 07:00 GMT - GENERAL
Four European associations representing complementary health insurance companies, independent bulletins and patients have issued a joint press release claiming: "The European Commission is supportive of the industry's moves: its 'consultations' are little more than an attempt to sway public opinion."
The press release was issued on Wednesday by the International Society of Drug Bulletins (ISDB), the Medicines in Europe Forum, Health Action International (HAI) and the Association internationale de la mutualité (AIM) and stated that Brussels was trying to overlook the "underlying risks to health" and ignore "the likely impact on the financial sustainability of Member states' public health systems."
The Medicines in Europe forum, ISDB and HAI are pursuing their campaign to put paid to any attempt by the industry to get round the ban on direct-to-consumer communication for prescription drugs.
In June, the three associations sent an open letter to the Commissioner for Industry, Günter Verheugen, complaining that the methodology of a consultation launched in April was biased in favour of the interests of the pharma industry.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The anti-advertising front considers that if companies were authorised to communicate directly with patients then the Commission's "claim to uphold the ban on advertising" for prescription drugs "would be no more than a smokescreen." In other words, authorising direct communication with patients would unleash major conflicts of interest.
The anti-advertising front is wary of any controls that might be implemented; it considers that: "Measures intended to control direct-to-consumer advertising in the United States and direct-to-prescriber advertising in Europe have clearly failed."
The four signatories argue that it is important to uphold Articles 86 and 88 of Directive 2001/83/EC that prohibit direct-to-consumer communication by pharma companies and they call on the European Commission to "uphold patients' interests above all else."
COMMISSION TAKES AFFRONT
The Commission is regularly accused of supporting the pharmaceutical industry.
During a meeting called by the HAI in Brussels in October, Christian Siebert, Head of Unit F5 of DG Enterprise, was taken to task by opponents of direct-to-consumer advertising.
The Commission was accused of not being transparent as to the composition of the Pharmaceutical Forum, an informal group comprising the Commission, Member states, MEPs and stakeholders. The Forum meets to discuss possible advances in a number of fields, particularly patient information.
Christian Siebert defended the Commission's choices, explaining that it would not have been easy to invite all patient associations and consequently it was the European Patient's Forum (EPF) that had been invited, considered as the "broadest and most representative."
As for criticism suggesting the Commission is biased, Siebert had retorted that it was insulting "to believe that officials of the Commission are just 'an extension' of the pharmaceutical industry.
Communication relating to medicinal products is an ever-recurring issue in Brussels.
Some years ago, a pilot-scheme for asthma, diabetes and HIV/AIDS treatments came to grief when the European Parliament vetoed it.
However, the subject sprang up again in 2005, when the Commission set up the Pharmaceutical Forum and that was followed by the public consultation launched in April.
pw/aki/ns
[9467] 07/12/2007 07:00 GMT - GENERAL
