Marketing Authorization of Pharmaceutical Products with Special Reference to Multisource (Generic) Products: A Manual for Drug Regulatory Authorities - Regulatory Support Series No. 005
(1998; 213 pages)
Table of Contents
View the documentPREFACE
View the documentI. INTRODUCTION
Close this folderII. PROVISIONS AND PREREQUISITES FOR REGULATORY CONTROL
View the documentA. Political will and commitment
View the documentB. Legislation
View the documentC. Accountability
View the documentD. Resources for the marketing authorization function
View the documentE. Fees and cost recovery
View the documentF. Inventory of existing products on the market
View the documentG. Rational selection of products
View the documentH. Special access schemes
View the documentI. Postmarketing activities
Open this folder and view contentsIII. OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Open this folder and view contentsIV. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR MARKETING AUTHORIZATION OF MULTISOURCE (GENERIC) PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
View the documentV. ISSUE OF WRITTEN MARKETING AUTHORIZATION
View the documentVI. VARIATIONS
View the documentVII. PERIODIC REVIEWS
View the documentVIII. SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF MARKETING AUTHORIZATION
View the documentGLOSSARY
View the documentABBREVIATIONS
View the documentREFERENCES
Open this folder and view contentsANNEXES
 

C. Accountability

Accountability means being required to account for one’s conduct and actions, usually to an individual or group but ultimately to the public. Both individuals and organizations may be accountable. There is some overlap between accountability and transparency.

Because the field of medicines is highly commercialized, it is characterized by extreme pressures on the DRA and by intensive lobbying from stakeholders at many levels. A system of accountability is essential in managing these tensions. A DRA is usually accountable to an individual official, such as the Minister for Health, or to a body, such as the parliament.

Mechanisms for ensuring accountability include:

• A requirement to provide public reports on a periodic (e.g. annual) basis;

• Publication of decisions, processes and policies;

• A mechanism for appeals against DRA decisions;

• A procedure for complaints about the actions of the DRA and the conduct of individual staff;

• A code of conduct describing the behaviour expected of DRA staff;

• Regular presentations at government hearings;

• Formalized mechanisms for consulting independent experts;

• Public hearings on new policies, or on applications to register new pharmaceutical products or products containing new APIs. It should be borne in mind that public hearings can be expensive and time-consuming;

• Electronic publication of information about the DRA;

It is not necessary to implement all the mechanisms. The appropriate mechanism(s) will depend on the local context, but should be defined and recognized by the government and the DRA in published documentation.

Codes of conduct
Some governments have general codes of conduct for government officials, while others have specific codes for particular agencies. A number of Internet web Sites contain suitable guidelines, including these:

www.icac.nsw.gov.au

Independent Commission Against Corruption, Sydney, NSW, Australia

www.oecd.org/puma/gvrnance/ethics

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Strasbourg, France

www.ethics.ubc.ca

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

www.usoge.gov

US Office of Government Ethics, Washington, DC, USA

to previous section to next section
 

Last updated: January 19, 2012