Following the rules in marketing

[The author responds:]

Murray Elston asks why I did not submit a complaint about the alleged violations that I reported in my letter. In order to engage in the complaints process, one must have some confidence in the system. The process used by the CRBPC does not inspire confidence. Recently a colleague filed a complaint about a company that allegedly had paid accommodation expenses for doctors attending a meeting in southern Ontario. The response of the CRBPC's Marketing Practices Review Committee was that the documentation provided did not support the allegation. Apparently the committee had not even bothered to ask the company if it had paid the hotel expenses.

Suppose that I had filed a complaint and it was upheld. What would the consequences have been? As I have previously documented,1 the CRBPC's reporting procedure on enforcement of its code is markedly nontransparent. No information would be given about who filed the complaint, when the complaint was made, when the violation took place, the product involved, the exact nature of the offense, the reasons why the complaint was upheld or the sanctions imposed. All that would appear in Update, the relatively obscure industry newsletter, is the name of the company and the section of the code that was violated.

Public reporting on all aspects of complaints and violations is critical for a number of reasons. First, it is an important accountability mechanism. Second, it should be considered an integral part of any sanctions against companies. Companies have an incentive to maintain compliance with a code and avoid adverse publicity and a possible deterioration in their public image. Third, public reporting is a good way to inform health care professionals about the existence of a code and its requirements. Above all, it is essential for informing health care professionals about misleading claims to which they have been exposed.2