Reckitt accused of hindering competition
Reckitt Benckiser has been accused of delaying the introduction of generic alginate compound products as alternatives to Gaviscon by impeding the publication of a generic name and by slowing down the introduction of a monograph by the British Pharmacopoeia Commission.
Relying on information provided by a company whistleblower, the BBC Newsnight programme said last week that delays to the introduction of a generic
equivalent to Gaviscon cost the NHS an extra £40m after the expiry
of the product’s patent in 1999.
The company’s delaying tactics started in 2000 when Gaviscon’s
then proprietor Reckitt & Colman challenged the BNF’s authority
to coin titles for compound products. This was two years after the Department
of Health asked the BNF to come up with a generic name for Gaviscon-type
products. (The BNF is recognised by the Medicines Act 1968 as a compendium
that is allowed to name and describe pharmaceutical products.)
Three years passed before the BNF was able to obtain final Counsel’s
opinion that it could do this and which gave approval for the proposed
process.
Consultation on the proposed generic name — compound
alginate oral suspension — was announced in April 2003 (PJ, 19 April 2003, p542).
But the process
was soon halted after the British Pharmacopoeia Commission
decided that it should produce a monograph instead (PJ, 5 July 2003,
p542).
Newsnight revealed that it was Reckitt Benckiser that persuaded the BP
commission to do this. An internal company e-mail (obtained by Newsnight)
said that the company was “devising a plan to extend the development
of a generic name for as long as
possible”.
Commenting on the e-mails obtained by Newsnight, Reckitt Benckiser said: “We
are deeply concerned by the inappropriate sentiment expressed in some
of the historic internal correspondence reported. … We also refute
much of what has been reported which implies a power and influence we
simply do not possess.”
The Department of Health has now asked Newsnight to send details of its
investigation to the NHS Counter Fraud Service.
In a statement, Reckitt Benckiser said that it had not objected to the
publication of a monograph-driven generic name, which the relevant regulatory
authorities could have published at any time without reference to any
third party.
And it also said: “The company made appropriate challenges where
it was felt it was justified to ensure patients are prescribed the right
treatment. These were within the law and relevant regulations.”
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader