It’s been agreed by all protagonists of this debate that the MA Code applies to all pharmaceutical companies – members or not – when it comes to product promotion. But Sigma argues that the cruise is a general, non-promotional event, so their responsibility to comply with the code doesn’t apply to this event. The TGA have agreed with Sigma’s stance.
This result has predictably led to the argument that this is yet another example of the non-level playing field that exists between generic and innovator companies. But, from a consumer point of view, the industry is one large beast, and any nuances related to MA membership, sponsorship or promotion probably doesn’t mean much.
Because this issue involves company sponsorship, competition constraints, and consumer expectations, perhaps there’s a case for the ACCC becoming involved in this issue?
In re-authorising the MA Code of Conduct, the ACCC imposed mandatory reporting of all sponsorship by MA-member companies, explaining that this raises “the level of transparency about functions sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.” Could there not be an argument that this level of transparency should extend throughout the entire pharmaceutical industry?