good promotional practices

The Forgetting Curve and Compliance Training

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

What exactly does a 167-year-old German scientist have to do with your compliance training? As a chief compliance officer, or training manager, the answer may keep you up at night – especially if you haven’t integrated micro-learning elements continuously into your company’s compliance learning curriculum.

Hermann Ebbinghaus was a German psychologist who is credited with theorizing fundamentals of human learning, including the learning curve, the spacing effect, and the forgetting curve. The Ebbinghaus Forgetting Curve essentially states that what humans remember after a learning event drops steeply soon after completion of that event. His research shows that memory loss continues to increase until it finally flattens around 30-days post event.

 

Steven Just, Ed.D., Chief Learning Officer at Intela Learning, a developer of continuous learning platforms, writes, “What gets stored in our long-term memories is subject to decay (i.e. forgetting)… deep learning occurs when memories are stored in long-term memory and stabilized. This is called memory consolidation.”

Fortunately for those of us seeking to reduce compliance risks across a company, spacing follow up micro-learning components, in smaller chunks, across a learner’s timeline helps flatten that forgetting curve and increase retention. As Dr. Just writes, “Retrieve the memory from long-term memory, bring it into working memory, process it, and then re-store (re-encode) it in long-term memory.”

Micro-learning Tools

Short “sprints” of learning deployed in follow up to foundational compliance training provides that opportunity for the concepts to be “re-stored” in the learner’s long-term memory. Micro-learning can include brief mini modules focused on one topic that you’ve identified as needing reinforcement. If gifts and meals are a high risk for your HCP-facing employees, a scenario-based mini module built around a common situation they face in the field, deployed soon after the comprehensive training, is one method for alleviating their concerns and reinforcing the appropriate behaviors. Mini modules aren’t the only effective tools for flattening the curve though. Short learning nuggets like quizzes and gaming, strategically deployed over time serve to heighten retention as well. As another option, sprint activities and scenario-based mysteries can be delivered in a competitive workshop format to reinforce participants’ understanding of policies and principles. (We call it the Compliance Reality Challenge).

Code of Conduct

Considering the range of topics covered in a typical code of conduct, from workplace violence; to harassment; and gifts and hospitality, a more creative and engaging approach to reinforcing the initial code training is not only a good idea, it’s crucial to improving the learning. One approach we’ve deployed to successful reviews is what we’ve titled Know the Code. Working with the client, we target specific topics within the broader code of conduct to create a “streaming” series, with each 7-minute “episode” built around those topics. Each animated scene in a scenario lasts approximately one minute. A narrator character tells the story and when necessary, directs the learner to take part in on-screen activities, with individual character voices employed to bring life and realism to the scenarios. The episodes are strategically released across a timeframe designed to once again, “re-store the concepts originally covered in the core module into the learners’ long-term memories.”

Keep it Continuous

The bottom line: to make compliance training as effective as possible in terms of reducing risk across the company, the learning nuggets you continuously rollout after the initial event (eLearning module, instructor-led training, etc.) are as important as the initial event itself. PharmaCertify offers the reinforcement tools, instructional expertise and an exciting new system that uses the most widely-accepted algorithm for creating and delivering post-training learning sprints to accomplish that goal. If you’re attending the 14th Annual Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress April 26-28, stop by Booth 10 to see demos of the products and platform, and ask how we can help reduce risk and strengthen the compliance culture in your company.

Thanks for reading and we’ll see you in Washington!

Sean Murphy, Product and Marketing Manager, PharmaCertify™

Compliance News in Review: the 2016 Year-End Summary

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here we are again. Another 584 million-mile (940 million km for our metric friends) trip around the sun is nearly complete. It seems like just yesterday we were celebrating the beginning of 2016 and now we’re picking out our favorite brand of champagne to celebrate its end. Before we break out the noisemakers and party favors, let’s take one last nostalgic look back at some of the life sciences compliance-related developments of 2016.

A new milestone was reached regarding HCP spend disclosure. The first disclosure reports under the EFPIA Disclosure Code were released in 2016. Gaining disclosure authorization from individual HCPs proved to be a challenge for the industry and the numbers of doctors who granted authorization ranged widely between countries. According to Britain’s pharmaceutical trade association, ABPI, 70% of their HCPs granted authorization and in Ireland, just over half of HCPs did so. In other transparency developments, ten of Canada’s top drug firms announced plans to voluntarily disclose aggregate physician and healthcare organization payment data. The movement was started by GSK Canada, and other multinational firms including Abbvie, Purdue, BMS, and Lilly followed.

Drug pricing was a big story in 2016. Former CEOs from Turing and Valeant were called to testify before Congress about drug price hikes, and Mylan’s CEO was called to testify over dramatic increases in the cost of an EpiPen. Laws that would require drug companies to disclose information about their pricing decisions were proposed in several states, and a bill was introduced at the federal level with similar requirements. Even with those high profile stories making headlines, only one pricing disclosure law successfully passed this year – Vermont. That law requires a select group of manufacturers to provide information about the factors related to price increases.

A handful of former Insys employees had an eventful year. A former sales representative entered a guilty plea to charges of fraud, and a district sales manager and a several of top executives were all arrested on charges they paid kickbacks to doctors. The drug at the center of the charges is the opioid painkiller, fentanyl. Prosecutors and enforcement agencies claim the individuals offered a variety of kickbacks to doctors to increase prescriptions and encouraged them to prescribe it for unapproved uses.

2016 was an active year for settlements related to bribery cases. GSK, AstraZeneca, SciClone, and Novartis all entered into settlements with the SEC over activities conducted by subsidiaries in China. Orthofix and Teva both set aside cash in anticipation of resolving the FCPA-related charges. Olympus entered into a $22.8 million settlement with the DOJ to resolve charges that a subsidiary covering Latin America paid bribes to healthcare professionals working in government facilities in order to increase sales of product.

We saw a couple of legal “victories” for the industry in the debate over sharing truthful off-label information. In the Amarin case, the FDA decided not to appeal a judge’s decision that allowed the company to share truthful off-label information about its fish oil product. In addition, in proposed jury instructions for a medical device case, the DOJ indicated that it is “not a crime for a device company or its representatives to give doctors wholly truthful and non-misleading information about the unapproved use of a device.”

With a string of legal decisions favoring the industry, the FDA held a public forum in November concerning the ability of drug and device makers to share off-label information. The primary topic was whether the agency needs to revise its regulations considering recent legal decisions and the forum was attended by various stakeholders representing both sides of the argument.

With that, we complete our look back at 2016 and the stories that made headlines in the world of life science compliance. It was an eventful year, and everyone at the Compliance News in Review is excited to see what the new year holds. Thanks for joining us throughout the year and best wishes for a happy, healthy, and compliant 2017!

Compliance News in Review, November 18, 2016

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bring on the turkey, cranberries and uncomfortable family interactions! Thanksgiving is almost here. Soon enough, the stress of all that preparation will melt away as we share meals with friends and family, and depending on how you look at it, a day of crazed shopping the day after will either offer a little more relief or send the stress level right back to record levels. Before your planning kicks into full gear, we offer this small helping of all the compliance news fit to blog, in this edition of the Compliance News in Review. Get it while it’s hot!

The FDA and industry representatives gathered around the table for a two-day public hearing regarding off-label marketing. The agency’s long held opinion remains the same – sharing information about a use that has not been proven safe and effective presents a risk to public health. Industry representatives argued that in a changing healthcare environment, where prescribing decisions are not made exclusively by physicians, the FDA needs to end regulatory barriers and issue clear regulations permitting the sharing of truthful, non-misleading information. The FDA also expressed concerns about the effect that sharing off-label information would have on the industry’s incentive to conduct well-controlled, randomized studies, and that physicians may not have the time to discern what information is misleading.

Former Valeant executives and employees of the specialty pharmacy, Philidor, are being charged with engaging in a kickback scheme to the tune of millions of dollars. According to the FBI, a Valeant executive received $10 million from Philidor. The payments were allegedly laundered through a series of shell companies to avoid detection. In response, Valeant noted that the company itself had not been charged, and documents related to the case made it clear the two former executives attempted to defraud the company.

Teva is setting aside a substantial amount of “leftovers” in the form of $520 million to settle bribery allegations from the DOJ and SEC. The allegations are related to activities in Russia, Mexico and the Ukraine. The company said the allegations did not involve its U.S. business, and implied the issues stemmed from third-parties subsidiaries. Teva also announced that its governance program and processes have since been revamped and it has severed ties with the problematic third-party agents.

Pass the lawsuit, please. A Pennsylvania judge has denied GSK’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 41 insurers over medications manufactured at a now closed GSK facility in Puerto Rico. The medications were allegedly defective, and the insurers claim GSK induced them to purchase the drugs, and then failed to react when the defective drugs were discovered.

Pharmaceutical sales representatives will now need an invitation from the city to work in Chicago. City Council has passed an ordinance requiring all representatives to obtain a license as part of an effort to help stave off improper opioid prescribing. Reps will have to undergo training on ethics, marketing regulations, and other laws. The fee will be $750, and the license must be renewed annually. The ordinance will go into effect in July 2017. Revenue will be used to educate physicians and patients about opioids.

With that, we close this edition of the Compliance News in Review. Thanks for reading and we wish you and your family a happy and healthy Thanksgiving holiday!

Notes and News from the Seventeenth Annual Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Compliance Congress

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If the overriding theme of the Seventeenth Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Compliance Congress could be summed up in three phrases, they might be “partnering with the businesses,” “a seat at the table,” and “a principles-based approach to compliance.” On that last one – note the change from “values-based approach” to “principles-based approach.”

Watching recent conferences (and the industry in general) evolve to the point where these themes are at the forefront is refreshing and encouraging. As someone who has worked in life sciences compliance training for ten years, I’ve looked forward to the shift to an all-inclusive approach that considers all ideas and voices in the organization, and ultimately leads to the creation of more valuable and engaging compliance training. Below are a few of my observations and highlights from this year’s conference. The conference organizers offer the opportunity to purchase an archive of individual sessions or the full conference at www.pharmacongress.com. You can preview video clips of those sessions at www.pharmacongress.com/post-con-individual.html.

CCO Roundtable

The Chief Compliance Officer Roundtable on Day 1 featured industry leaders sharing lessons on building and executing a modern and effective compliance program. The panel included representatives from both the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and the conversation focused on two concepts: the practice of thinking from a perspective of risk (the “gestalt of risk,” as one panelist defined it), and the need to focus on what is meaningful to the business when developing and executing a compliance example. One speaker used the example of monitoring sample dates, and how that practice is not necessarily worthwhile to the business. That same panelist emphasized the need for hiring individuals with business experience when staffing compliance positions. Another looked at compliance training as what employees “should stop doing based on prioritized risk.”

Finally, one panelist stressed “prevention” over “detection” and how his staff uses data analytics to help identify problems based on the area of risk. “Defining guardrails, and risk tolerance, is necessary to get out in front of the issues,” he said.

FCPA Enforcement

During the FCPA Enforcement Panel, Joseph Beemsterboer, JD of the Department of Justice, Terry Price, JD of the SEC, and Gejaa Gobena, JD, of Hogan Lovells, discussed the growing number of cases related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. To this point in Fiscal 2016, 24 FCPA cases have been filed, 6 of them against pharmaceutical companies. 85-90% of the 24 cases were related to conduct in China. Pharmaceutical and medical device industries represent such a significant portion of these cases because large numbers of their employees must interact with foreign officials, according to one of the presenters.

Anti-bribery

Day 2 opened with a much-anticipated session titled Behind the Bribe: Multiple Real-World Perspectives on How Foreign Bribery Occurs, Is Investigated, and Could Be Prevented. Regulators emphasized that anti-bribery remains an area of focus, “we are still seeing the same behaviors, and issues with gifts, travel, and entertainment,” according to one panelist. The FBI representative made it clear that the Agency is “committed to going after global bribery” and the “storm that is coming” will focus on the prosecution of individuals. “Culture is critical,” he said, “just publishing a video from the CEO doesn’t cut it anymore.”

The panel included former executive, Richard Bistrong, who spent time in prison for conspiring to bribe officials to win contracts from the United Nations, and spent 2.5 years as a government witness. Mr. Bistrong stressed the need for diligence as foreign cultures can be misleading. Distributors will often sign FCPA documents, then do something else in the practice. “Don’t let get the business done, drown out how to get the business done,” was one of his key points.

First Amendment Update

During the Truthful and Non-Misleading Communications and Recent First Amendment Cases session, a panel of industry attorneys discussed and debated the ambiguity regarding off-label promotion in FDA policy. After revealing the reasoning behind the FDA’s policy (patient safety and advancement of science), a lively discussion led to speculation that the Agency’s recent public hearing and announcement in the Federal Register signals gridlock and tension among leadership. This lack of direction is what led companies such as Amarin and Pacira to believe they needed to litigate their cases, according to one attorney. The session closed with the moderator asking each panelist if he or she thought the FDA would publish any clear guidance in the next year. The responses ranged from “I just don’t know,” to “highly unlikely,” to “no, they’re not.” Don’t expect clarification anytime soon folks.

Managed Markets

The Compliance Considerations for the Managed Markets Business opened with panelists first defining their definition of managed markets and how it differed for each of their companies. The bottom line was that no matter the particulars, it is defined as the functions responsible for “ensuring patients have access to the therapies the physicians write.” One industry representative said her company defines healthcare professionals to include anyone paying for the products, and another included anyone who can influence prescribing decisions – making compliance policies and the regulations pertinent to the managed markets business.

The expanded movement to the use of specialty pharmacies creates more risk, according to the panel, and companies are thinking about those issues in more detail after Novartis’ Corporate Integrity Agreement was made public. Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), Patient Assistant Programs (PAPs) and Reimbursement HUBs were covered as well, with the panelists stressing that government is starting to examine the relationships established through these entities, and companies need to be aware that laws never meant for managed markets are now being applied to that sector of the industry. As an example, one panelist mentioned, “the data that goes back and forth with charities is a risk area, and measures need to be put in place to ensure it is not used inappropriately by anyone involved with the data.” The session ended with a compelling question from the audience, “how do you ensure copay cards aren’t used for off-label purposes?” The answer came down to extensive monitoring to make sure that anyone who was supposed to be excluded was indeed excluded.

Compliance Training

As the compliance training division of NXLevel Solutions, the PharmaCertify™ team is always eager to attend sessions such as this conference’s What’s New for Training Programs. Since our mission is to help life sciences companies strengthen their compliance cultures and reduce risk, we are always encouraged to hear pharmaceutical and medical device professionals espousing techniques that support that goal. This session was no exception. While each company varied in the particular details, the panelists’ remarks made it clear that a true movement toward a blended approach to compliance, spread across a learner’s timeline, is growing. As one professional described it, “training to the right people, with the right content, the right amount of times.”

While panelists varied on the degree of live training over computer-based training, most agreed that the use of small vignettes, or small “bursts of information,” as one described them, are critical. The live training options included a Family Feud type game rolled out on a regular basis to streaming scenarios. The millennial generation was referenced, and the need for mentoring programs and live training that makes millennials’ transition into the industry a more compliant one.

Training content was a focal point, with one panelist stating “you have to make the content relevant, so people can do their jobs,” as he stressed the need to survey the learners on what else they actually want to learn about, along with questions about whether or not they feel more knowledgeable and if they have the support of their managers.

And let’s not forget about culture and tone of the organization – at the top, middle, and bottom. For example, training needs to emphasize that employees should feel comfortable reporting violations and asking questions.

The PharmaCertify™ compliance training professionals and subject matter experts are always anxious to discuss your compliance training curriculum and plans. To discover how we can help evolve your approach to training, contact Dan O’Connor at doconnor@nxlevelsolutions.com or visit http://www.pharmacertify.com/ to learn more about our products and services.

Compliance 2.0

It’s time for “partnering with the business” and “a seat at the table!” During the Compliance 2.0: Shared Ownership of Effective Compliance Across Business Functions presentation, six panelists (representatives from compliance and business) detailed case studies on how their companies made compliance concepts and programs more concrete and effective. Throughout each example, the importance of bringing the business into the planning from the start was stressed. One team who used the development of a new monitoring tool as their example said, “you have to know and understand the business in order to build a tool that meets their needs as well as your needs.”

One particularly interesting panelist was recently added to his company’s compliance team from the field, as part of the organization’s efforts to foster a strategic relationship between the business and compliance. He represented a compelling example of how that type of program is an opportunity to “infuse ethics and compliance into the company when the business pulls him back,” as he effectively put it. As another eloquently stated, “we have to raise our business partner’s compliance IQ and we can’t do that by ourselves.”

“Access to leadership” was referenced as a key component of Compliance 2.0, as more than one panelist discussed the need for those involved to feel comfortable questioning everything from leadership as the initiatives got started.

Beyond Transparency

My final breakout session was Beyond Transparency: HCP Interaction Risk Management. The session was centered on the use of data and how the transparency data can be used to track issues, then leveraging the auditing results to enhance policies and create more training. One panelist addressed it succinctly when he said, “our goal is to get to the point to where we use data to identify issues faster.” Another used the example of speaker programs and how the data could be used to raise questions about the number of times an individual HCP attended a speaker program, and raise the question of whether that was a concern.

The audience was reminded that “transparency isn’t just TOV data, it refers to sample data as well, and there is a need to overlay sample data with TOV data to reveal more than occasional interactions with one HCP.”

With representatives from both large and small companies on the panel, much of the discussion centered on the tools needed to keep the data organized and up-to-date. One panelist summarized it nicely, “when you do your hiring, make sure you find a person with excellent Microsoft Excel skills.”

The Evolution of Compliance Programs

The first presentation during the closing plenary session, Driving the Evolution of Compliance Programs into Systems Supporting Business Integrity, covered the oft-referenced theme of a “principles-based approach to compliance.” Representatives from three different companies touted the benefits of moving away from a “rules-based approach.”

As a foundation, in a principles-based system, decisions are not based on policy, but more on how individuals think and make decisions. “They need to be given the skills to make decisions,” according to one Vice President of Compliance, and “they need to be empowered to make those decisions and it’s a cultural shift for all stakeholders.” This is approach requires “a high level of trust and respect by leadership for the rank and file,” one panelist noted; and, he pointed out, writing shorter and more concise policies associated with such an approach takes discipline and time – quoting Winston Churchill, he referenced, “I would have written a much shorter speech if I had the time.”

The shift isn’t an easy one and the panelists stressed the need to “get leadership’s buy-in and help them see that a rules-based policy was holding the company back and the new policy will help patients, caregivers, and shareholders.” When an audience member asked “what kind of practical training would you offer to support such a shift,” the panel responded with “go back to the guiding principles of honor, trust, and integrity.”

Summary

While we weren’t able to attend all the sessions at the Seventeenth Annual Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Compliance Congress, we couldn’t help but be impressed with the level of content the conference provided to an audience hungry for any best practices and advice they could garner from their colleagues and subject matter experts. From a vendor standpoint, the foot traffic on the exhibit floor was steady and we appreciated the unique opportunity to engage current and prospective clients in meaningful conversation about their compliance programs and how we can help strengthen their compliance culture and reduce risk.

I welcome your thoughts and feedback. Please contact me at smurphy@nxlevelsolutions.com.

Thanks for reading and stay compliant!

Sean Murphy, Product and Marketing Manager, PharmaCertify™ by NXLevel Solutions

Compliance News in Review, October 14, 2016

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ghouls, goblins and ghosts galore…the haunting season is here! Enjoy it while you can, before you know it, reindeer, snowmen, and gingerbread men will be scattered across the landscapes. (Poor Thanksgiving…it gets no respect!) No tricks from us though, just treats. And by treats we mean delicious bites of news! So before you head out to wait for the Great Pumpkin, join us for this not-so-scary edition of the Compliance News in Review.

The FDA has carved out time for a public hearing on November 9th and 10th to discuss the subject of communicating off-label uses of drugs and devices. The agency hopes to hear from a variety of stakeholders, including industry representatives, healthcare professionals, patients, and research institutions. Approximately 30 topics will be discussed, ranging from the effect that increased communications will have on patient enrollment in clinical trials to how patients should be made aware that they are receiving information about an off-label use.

GSK is feeling a bit of a chill in the air. The company reached an agreement with the SEC to pay $20 million to resolve FCPA-related charges its Chinese subsidiary paid bribes to increase sales. As part of the settlement, GSK is also required to provide the SEC with reports regarding its implementation of anticorruption measures for the next two years.

Dermatologists are receiving lots of treats from the industry. A study of 2014 Open Payments data reveals that nearly three-quarters of the country’s dermatologists received payments in 2014. Most were under $50.00, but a few of the doctors received payments totaling more than $90,000.00. The study appears in JAMA Dermatology.

These are frightful times at Mylan as the company agrees to pay $465 million to settle claims it overcharged Medicaid for EpiPen. The company has come under intense fire for its pricing practices related to the product. In agreeing to the settlement, Mylan did not admit to wrongdoing.

The news of the FDA’s public hearing on communication related to the unapproved uses of drugs and devices is encouraging. Hopefully, after the forum, the agency will move quickly on the release of new guidance. As court decisions are discussed in the media and more public hearings are announced, now is a great time to reinforce appropriate promotional communication through the release of updated training.

With that, we close our autumnal edition of the Compliance News in Review. One final note – if you’re attending the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Compliance Congress next week, stop by Booth 404 in the exhibit hall and say “boo!”

Thanks for reading and stay compliant!

Compliance News in Review, September 15, 2016

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Illinois tackles illegal drug promotion by Insys; the ABPI calls out two member companies for breaking promotion rules; the Australian legislature shines a light on corporate crime and Medicines Australia reports on payments to doctors; and AstraZeneca settles with the SEC…all in this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

You had to know it wasn’t far away when “pumpkin spice everything” started appearing on store shelves. After the long hot summer, the staff here at the Compliance News in Review couldn’t be more excited that football is back, and cooler days with it (hopefully). Whether you’re a fan of college, or the league where they play for pay, the season is short, but that’s what makes it so special. Yes. football is now our focus, but not so much that we won’t continue to provide you with all the life sciences compliance news fit to blog. So, strike up the band, we’re ready to take the field on this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

The Illinois Attorney General is lining up against Insys. The state has filed suit against the company for illegal marketing of its fentanyl drug. The drug is approved for treating pain in cancer patients, but the AG alleges the company has been marketing the drug for treatment of other types of pain. The company also encouraged doctors to write prescriptions for higher, more expensive doses of its product, despite FDA recommendations to use the lowest dose of opioids possible, according to the suit.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) threw a flag on Hospira and Napp Pharmaceuticals. The organization has accused the companies of breaking the rules regarding promotion of biosimilars. An investigation found that Napp Pharmaceuticals made inappropriate payments to physicians attending a meeting that was deemed an advisory board. Hospira allegedly invited U.K. doctors to attend a meeting outside the U.K., which was a not a genuine advisory board, where their drug was promoted.

The Australian legislature will huddle about the state of its anticorruption law. After two Australian companies were implicated in a case involving the bribery of foreign officials, a member of the Australian senate decided to relaunch a committee to address corporate corruption. The mission of the committee is to improve Australia’s response to corporate crime and the senator noted that compared to bribery laws in the U.S. and U.K., Australia’s law is inadequate.

The “score” regarding industry payments to physicians in Australia has been posted for public review. Between October 2015 and April 2016 doctors received $8.5 million from industry according to a report from Medicines Australia. The organization says this report provides patients with more information than ever before about the relationship between doctors and the industry, and that the organization’s “standards for ethical and transparency will improve the Australian health care system.”

Thanks to an “ineligible receiver” call from the officials at the SEC, AstraZeneca has agreed to pay $5.5 million to resolve FCPA related charges. The SEC alleged that the company did not have proper internal controls in place related to interactions with foreign officials – mostly healthcare providers – in its China and Russian subsidiaries. The agency contends that improper payments, in the form of cash, travel, and gifts, were documented as bona fide business expenses. While AstraZeneca did not admit or deny any wrongdoing, it did cooperate fully with the investigation.

This week’s review had a decidedly foreign flavor. Where compliance outside the U.S. is concerned, we recall a quote from Pulp Fiction (bet you never thought a Tarantino film would ever be referenced in blog post about compliance) when Vincent Vega is discussing the differences between European countries and the U.S. “They have everything there we have here. It’s just a little bit different.” The same can be said for compliance issues. While the principles or requirements related to drug promotion may be the same here and abroad for the most part, there are small differences between what is permitted in the U.S. and what is permitted around the world. Life sciences companies must train employees about practices that are appropriate when conducting business outside the U.S., particularly in their interactions with non-U.S. HCPs.

With that, the time has expired on this edition of the Compliance News in Review. Don’t forget to click that blue button on the right to “follow” our blog so you’ll receive notifications when we post new content.

Until next time, stay compliant and enjoy the games!

Excel for Tracking Training? Been There, Done That, and Sadly, I Have the T-Shirt.

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As someone who worked in compliance for a small life sciences company, I like to share the problems and pitfalls I experienced over the years, in the hope of saving others from the same fate. Today, we touch on the subject of Learning Management Systems and in particular, my hard-learned lesson about trying to use Microsoft Excel for some LMS functions. I like Excel as a software program overall. And, if you work in training, it may seem like a logical choice for measuring metrics. It’s not. If your company doesn’t have an enterprise-wide LMS in place, or if a particular group of learners (e.g., third-party vendors) doesn’t have access to your internal LMS, I strongly recommend using a hosted or cloud-based LMS  rather than relying on Excel to handle the tracking and reporting.

Is an LMS a Better Option?

The obvious and primary limitation of using Excel is you still need to find a way to host and deploy the training. Even when used solely for the purposes of tracking and reporting, it can be burdensome, error-prone, and time-consuming. At a minimum, you need to enter all of the learner-related data, as well as the list of courses assigned to each learner, and the dates the courses were deployed and completed. Then there’s the on-going need to keep your learners updated with reminders that training is due, and the work necessary to pull metrics from all the data. Using Excel is a manual process, which opens the door for mistakes and those mistakes, are hard to catch when you’re pouring over hundreds of lines of data.

Using a hosted or cloud-based LMS helps automate those processes, greatly improves accuracy, and lightens the burden of the on-going work. While some upfront work is necessary as an administrator, the LMS itself does most of the heavy lifting. Deployment of the training and management of the completion records are handled by the LMS, freeing you from developing formulas and creating your own reports. In fact, you’re likely to get far more insight from the reports and metrics that are standard with most hosted and cloud-based services than you’d ever be able to pull from Excel. And the best part – all of this comes with the ability to host and deploy the training.

Of course, a hosted LMS solution isn’t the panacea to all of your workload challenges. You may not be able to customize the functionality of the LMS, and depending on what service you choose, you may or may not be able to manage your classroom learning with the service. Then, of course, there’s the big elephant in the room, the cost. Reconciling the budget when you think you can manage with the software you already have in house may seem difficult, especially for small to mid-size companies. However, when you factor in the time spent by managing all the tasks manually, the cost may not seem so overwhelming.

What About the Budget?

A number of cost-effective options are available. For example, our PharmaCertify Access™ LMS offers an affordable way for small to mid-size (and even larger) clients to host and track online training, whether it’s developed by us, another vendor, or in-house by our client.

Looking back on that Excel experience, I regret not giving more than a fleeting thought to using a hosted LMS, even though I only had a few hundred learners to manage. I’m sure an LMS would have provided better insight into the impact the training had on the audience, and would have allowed me to dedicate more time and resources to building an even better compliance training curriculum.

Thanks for reading, and stay compliant!

Lauren Barnett
Compliance Content Specialist
PharmaCertify™ by NXLevel Solution

 

 

 

Compliance News in Review, July 14, 2016

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Serious Fraud Office has its second application for a DPA approved, CMS solicits feedback, and experts are dismissed from an advisory panel due to perceived conflicts.

It’s hot, it’s humid, and the editorial staff at the New Jersey AND Georgia offices of the Compliance News in Review is already desperately seeking safety from the sun’s intense rays. The dog days of summer have arrived with gusto. If you’re looking for a good reason to spend a few more minutes in the comfortable confines of an air conditioned office or home, we suggest a deep dive into the cool waters of this edition of the CNIR, and all of the compliance news fit to blog.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) seem to be no sweat for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The agency has had its second application for a DPA approved in a case that involves violations of the UK Bribery Act. The company involved agreed to pay $8.48 million in fines and disgorgement. It must also report annually on its third-party intermediary transactions and compliance programs, and continue to cooperate with the SFO. The DPA remains in effect until 2020, but it may be terminated in 2018 if the company meets its financial obligations by then.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is basking in the Sunshine these days. In the proposed 2017 Physician Fee schedule, the agency solicited feedback for a number of questions related to the Open Payments program. The questions cover record retention, issues related to teaching hospitals, and the nature of payment categorization. Of particular note, the agency is seeking feedback about the benefits of pre-vetting payments with covered recipients and issues related to uploading data to Open Payments.

In an indication that their relationships with industry were a little too hot to handle, several experts have been removed from a panel that is responsible for advising the FDA about painkillers. The panel was created by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, a larger advisory group to the FDA. The removal of the panel members appears to have been spurred by a letter Senator Ron Wyden sent to the Academy of Medicine complaining that some panelists had received support (in the form of grants) from pharmaceutical companies. One panelist, Dr. Mary Lynn McPherson, says the support in question did not go to her directly, it went to the university where she is on staff, and was in the form of unrestricted grants so the pharmaceutical companies never had input on how the money was used. Another of the dismissed panelists, Dr. Gregory Terman, says he was removed because the nonprofit group he heads received funding from several pharmaceutical companies. Terman says his association with the nonprofit was well known, and he has gone out of his way to avoid conflicts of interest.

The last story serves as a reminder that much of the data regarding the relationship between healthcare professionals and the industry is presented with little context as to the nature and reasons for the payments. HCPs are understandably sensitive about receiving certain transfers of value, and they have questions about how those TOVs are disclosed. Your transparency training should remind learners that they need to be sensitive about these concerns, and educate them on the proper protocol for addressing HCP questions about data.

With that, we close this mid-summer edition of the Compliance News in Review. Stay compliant and stay cool.

Compliance News in Review, July 5, 2016

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Another organization calls for a ban on Direct to Consumer advertising, two former industry sales reps are arrested for kickbacks, a former executive is acquitted on kickback charges, and CMS releases update TOV data.

Strike up the band and light up the fireworks! The American Experiment marked its 240th year this weekend. So, it’s fitting that the hottest ticket on Broadway these days is the story of one our nation’s founders. Since most of us won’t be lucky enough (or rich enough) to score tickets to Hamilton in celebration , we had to stick with the old standbys of parades, barbecues, fireworks. To cap the holiday weekend, we offer a new tradition to add to the list, the Independence Day edition of the Compliance News in Review.

The fireworks continue regarding DTC advertising. The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists is the latest group to express a desire to see DTC advertising of prescription drugs banned. In the past, the organization has been supportive of the advertising, as long as it meets certain criteria. Since it now believes the industry is ignoring the criteria, the group has withdrawn its support. A spokesperson says a complete ban is not possible, but he hopes this action will lead to a discussion between industry and healthcare providers about DTC ads. The current model of DTC advertising is outdated according to the spokesperson, and pharmacists and providers are spending too much time explaining to patients why drugs they see in ads are not appropriate for them.

A pair of former Insys sales representatives could be losing their independence in the near future. The two were arrested for allegedly paying over $250,000 in kickbacks to doctors who wrote prescriptions for the painkiller fentanyl. The complaint alleges that most of the money was paid for serving as speakers at programs that were essentially social functions. Very little, if any, educational information was shared, according to the complaint, and following the programs, the sales reps would often take the doctors out for drinks and other entertainment. In a statement, the company says the sales reps were no longer employed and company policy prohibits the giving of cash or other items of value as inducements for writing prescriptions.

It was no tea party in Boston for the feds in a case against a former Warner-Chilcott executive. W. Carl Reichel was acquitted of charges that he paid kickbacks to doctors. Prosecutors charged that the former executive created a strategy of paying kickbacks to doctors in the form of sham speaking fees, money, and free meals in exchange for writing prescriptions of Warner-Chilcott drugs. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz said the charges against Mr. Reichel were warranted, and while cases against executives are difficult to prove, they’re necessary to deter improper conduct.

CMS sent out its annual declaration about Open Payments data. The payment and transfer of value data has been published, and is now publicly accessible. This year’s data represents nearly 12 million records covering $7.52 billion paid to physicians and teaching hospitals. As usual, research payments account for the largest share of the total amount.

This edition of the News in Review reminds us that the consequences of non-compliant behavior can be quite personal. When the big headlines tend to be about the multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements paid to settle charges of fraud and non-compliance, convincing individuals that there is also a price to pay can be challenging. Citing cases like these in your training is one way to inform commercial staff and executives of those consequences.

While we don’t advocate turning compliance training into something akin to “Scared Straight,” sharing the full landscape of government enforcement actions is important. This is especially true following last year’s memo from Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates about the DOJ’s emphasis on holding individuals accountable in cases of corporate wrongdoing.

That’s it for this edition of the Compliance News in Review. Stay compliant!

Buy or Build: Is Off-the-Shelf or Custom Online Compliance Training Right for You?

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

During a recent compliance conference panel session, a chief compliance officer from a mid-size pharmaceutical company proclaimed, “I only use custom for online training,” and “off-the-shelf just doesn’t meet my content needs.” She went on to explain that with custom-developed training, she could target specific topics and include company-specific policies in a way that she never could with off-the-shelf.

Fair point, but she failed to take into consideration that while custom-developed training can indeed be built to focus on the compliance content she needs to cover, well-built, flexible off-the-shelf training provides a solid foundation of knowledge, which can then be supplemented with targeted, custom micro-learning in the future, as gaps and custom needs demand.

Start with Off-the-Shelf

Small to mid-size pharmaceutical and medical device companies need effective training covering core topics such as off-label promotion, transparency, gifts and meals, and adverse events, but the training resources and budgets available to many compliance departments, which often consist of a staff of one or two, are quite limited. Instructionally sound, industry-focused, off-the-shelf training can easily and quickly provide core compliance training, without draining your limited resources and time.

For obvious reasons, off-the-shelf, even when tailored to include your specific policies and contact information, can be deployed more quickly than a fully custom training course. Review times are shortened and less demanding, and when a need for training on a specific topic (e.g., speaker presentations) is identified, off-the-shelf gives you the flexibility to deploy rapidly while the topic is still top of mind to your learners. Moreover, with quality off-the-shelf training, content is developed by someone with specific knowledge of the industry, and expertise in commercial compliance. Therefore, your time isn’t consumed with being the primary subject matter expert.

A Time and Place for Custom

This is a need for custom online learning in an effective compliance training curriculum – one that addresses all of your organizational risks and truly helps to build a positive compliance culture. The most recent research points to the importance of spacing learning over time and providing review and reinforcement exercises after the initial training is launched to improve retention. As educational psychologist Steven Just, Ed.D., founder and former CEO of the assessment company, Pedagogue, writes, “To learn, you must cognitively act upon the learning materials, and to retain what you have learned, you must actively re-engage with the learning repeatedly over a period of time.” Starting with off-the-shelf, then mixing in smaller, more cost effective, custom mini modules and interactivities (video scenarios, games, assessments) over time and across a well thought out compliance training plan, has been proven to support on-going behavior change – a key objective in the world of commercial compliance.

Summary

While custom online compliance training should certainly play a role in the on-going execution of your compliance training plan, launching a foundation of targeted, off-the-shelf courses to address important topics to a broad audience represents a rational and cost-effective starting point for any life sciences company’s compliance training curriculum.

Don’t forget to “follow” the PharmaCertify™ blog by clicking the blue link on the right so you don’t miss our updates. Coming soon, The Right Stuff: What Compliance Topics to Cover in Your Product Launch Training.

Thanks for reading and stay compliant!

Sean Murphy, Product and Marketing Manager PharmaCertify by NXLevel Solutions