Key Topic 1 - Subtopic 2: Public Access
One of the main principles for signatories to consider with promotional digital assets is whether they can be construed as promoting to the general public – this will depend on access, clarity of the target audience and nature of the content.
Digital communications for consumers/patients should usually be separate from the communications for healthcare professionals.
It is advisable (and in some countries mandatory) to provide prominent links on digital media communications designed for HCPs to an alternative Company or external site suitable for the public, particularly if access to a HCP website is not restricted e.g., through a password.
Visitors accessing the page may land on pages other than the home page and the site should be constructed to direct audiences to the appropriate website for them from any page accessible through a search engine. For example, all pages intended only for HCPs that can be accessed from a search engine should have a clear link directing patients and the public to the appropriate alternative site.
Consider this example
A website sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim was the subject of a complaint in Australia. The intent of the website (according to Boehringer Ingelheim) was to inform doctors and patients of the Australian Government’s decision, contrary to the advice of the PBAC, to delay the listing of a new stroke medication.
(The medicine in question was Pradaxa (dabigatran) although it was not specifically mentioned in the main body of the website).
The website did not include any information about who sponsored the website on any of its pages and access was not restricted.
The website contained the this statement:
Australia is facing an epidemic of stroke in people with atrial fibrillation and “this decision could be a matter of life or death for many thousands of elderly Australians with atrial fibrillation”.
Among the references for the various statements on the website was the Pradaxa Product Information and the PBAC public summary document for dabigatran. The website included an option to sign an online petition, and there was a ‘keep me updated’ option which required users to input their contact details.
Which of the following do you agree with?
- The subject matter of this website was ‘a matter of public interest’ the Committee acknowledged that the Government’s deferral of listing of a range of medicines was of concern for companies, healthcare professionals and members of the general public
- This is not promotion to the public as the product was not specifically named the Committee found that placement of the Pradaxa product information as a reference source identified that particular product and contributed to the promotion of it to the public
- The statement about stroke could create undue alarm by members of the public the Committee was concerned about the ‘highly emotive and inflammatory language’ used
- This activity is political ‘lobbying’ rather than promotion and therefore falls outside of the Australian Code although the Committee suggested that further guidance on this issue would be helpful
The website was found to breach regulations for lack of transparency in terms of sponsorship, and promotion to the public and Boehringer Ingelheim were fined $125,000. Because the website was not compliant, the Committee banned Boehringer Ingelheim from using the contact details that it had obtained from the ‘keep me updated’ option to send any more information to users of the site.
