Lobbying by Australia's drug industry association, Medicines Australia, has persuaded the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to scrap a proposal to require public disclosure of drug companies' sponsorship of doctors' travel and accommodation and other promotional benefits.
The commission, a government agency established to protect consumers from anticompetitive activity, had originally proposed accrediting a self regulatory code on the marketing of drugs developed by Medicines Australia member companies, subject to certain amendments.
The first amendment laid down that Medicines Australia publish details of all breaches of the code on its website in full and in the annual report of its code of conduct committee. Medicines Australia found that amendment acceptable.
The commission also recommended that member companies disclose planned sponsorship of events and travel for doctors, "to ensure that benefits are not provided which might affect doctors' prescribing habits." This proposal drew strong criticism from Medicines Australia and the Australian Medical Association, the biggest doctors' association.
In its submission to the commission the association claimed that disclosure "could serve to expose doctors and the pharmaceutical companies to public derision by people with unfounded prejudices and no real understanding of the complex educational framework and benefits involved in such educational meetings."
The director of the international public health group Healthy Skepticism, Peter Mansfield, believes that patients should be told about drug companies' sponsorship deals. "If there is nothing wrong with what is going on, then there is no problem with everybody knowing about it," he said.
Medicines Australia complained that there was a "significant risk" that the availability of such information "will encourage overzealous critics of the pharmaceutical industry to seek to interfere in its normal and legitimate business activities."
"The information may be misused by media or consumer groups, which could cause patients to question the value of their prescription and possibly lead them not to fill it," the group submitted to the commission.
Prior notification of events, they argued, could result in "uninvited parties (such as the media) to attend educational meetings for ulterior purposes," they submitted. "This risk could deter doctors from attending."
Instead Medicines Australia proposed that a three person committee, the code of conduct monitoring committee, seek information from member companies about materials and invitations to industry sponsored meetings and include a summary in its annual report. In its final determination the commission dropped its original proposal and opted for the alternative from Medicines Australia.
Martyn Goddard, senior policy officer with the Australian Consumers Association, was dismayed by the commission's retreat: "The ACCC have rolled over on their backs and had their tummies tickled by the drug companies . . . Medicines Australia still has total control. They decide what is going to be publicised and what isn't. They make the judgment about what falls outside the code and what doesn't."
The commission's final determination on the Medicines Australia application is available at http://www.accc.gov.au