Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a continuing effort to provide the latest, most accurate information to physicians, many pharmaceutical manufacturers have been facing a growing public perception that their interactions with health care providers were inappropriate ' or in some cases even unethical. Seeking to remove any appearance of impropriety and reinforce the industry's mission of providing essential medical information, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) recently issued a revised version of its Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals that took effect on Jan. 1, 2009 (“revised Code”). The revised Code imposes new “voluntary” restrictions on gifts, meals, distribution of educational items, sponsorship of conferences, and consulting agreements. It also sets forth strict new compliance requirements mandating that chief executive officers and chief compliance officers certify that their companies are implementing policies and procedures designed to foster compliance with the revised Code and verifying the existence of these policies and procedures through periodic outside audits. PhRMA's stated goal for the new Code is to promote “the highest ethical standards as well as all legal requirements.” 2009 PhRMA Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals, available at http://www.phrma.org/code_on_interactions_with_healthcare_professionals. Nevertheless, companies should be aware that by raising the bar for the industry, they may be taking on additional legal duties and litigation risks. Government regulators and plaintiffs' attorneys will inevitably take aim at these more restrictive standards and target those companies that fail to meet them.
The impact of the revised Code on a company's business practices will require a careful analysis and action plan to be successful. Failure to comply with the revised Code may have broad implications in terms of regulatory enforcement, product liability litigation and even consumer protection issues. In-house counsel and outside counsel must assess the criminal and civil implications of the revised Code and craft practical policies reflecting its principles. Any analysis should consider the question of how the revised Code might be used against the company in legal proceedings. However, the analysis should also include a discussion as to how the company can use the revised Code to its benefit in potential litigation. If implemented properly, these updated guidelines can help companies protect themselves against unwanted attention from state and federal regulators, as well as the usual character attacks employed by plaintiffs in civil litigation.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.