In the research announcements of scientific representatives of the drug, characteristics of the law or AIFA (?) are required for candidates, but whoever hires does not respect any legal parameter. Most of the time not even the name of 
law is respected: there are those who speak of medical reps or pharmaceutical reps or technical-scientific reps, etc. when the Legislative Decree 219/06 defines these professionals as Pharmaceutical Scientific Representatives (ISF). It seems unimportant, but it already means a complete ignorance on the subject.
Here we reproduce one where it is mentioned that it is assumed according to the "AIFA standard". And what is the AIFA standard? Evidently he does not know that the Legislative Decree 219/06 exists which indicates precisely the requisites and the activities that the ISFs must have and carry out. You probably don't know that there are guidelines from the Conference of the Regions, now implemented in all the regional regulations on scientific information. He does not know that the ISF are prohibited from selling as also stated by the sentences of the Cassation.
Yet these people continue to assume a VAT number, a legitimate assumption, with commissions, however, calculated on sales data that an ISF cannot and does not do. It forces you to pay undue Enasarco contributions (and non-refundable) because an ISF, even with a VAT number, is not an Enasarco subject. The least precarious of the new recruits is whoever has a trade contract and not a chemical contract, to which the ISF belong.
Someone even looks for and hires multi-mandatory ISF, not admitted, unless the Ministry of Health, after having heard AIFA, gives its authorisation. But there is no authorization.
A jungle of widespread illegality that is uncontrollable and not controlled by AIFA and this time AIFA has the task of controlling.
Current circumstances should then really impose compliance with the law in an ever more stringent way.
Editorial – July 1, 2020
Related news: ISF Job Offers
