The following Letter to the Editor was submitted by Andy Rosenberg, Senior Adviser to the CME Coalition, in response to a recent article in Modern Healthcare on CME and the Physician Payment Sunshine Act.
Reporter Jaimy Lee wrote a very balanced piece recently in which she accurately laid out some of the battle lines surrounding the merits of commercial support for accredited continuing medical education (CME). While most patients and their doctors appreciate the vitally important role that CME plays in offering health care providers with independently-verified, scientifically-based information regarding the latest in diagnosis and treatment for disease, some in academia continue to chafe at the fact that much of this life-saving information might never make it to bedside, but for the indirect financial support of drug and device manufacturers.
Reporter Jaimy Lee wrote a very balanced piece recently in which she accurately laid out some of the battle lines surrounding the merits of commercial support for accredited continuing medical education (CME). While most patients and their doctors appreciate the vitally important role that CME plays in offering health care providers with independently-verified, scientifically-based information regarding the latest in diagnosis and treatment for disease, some in academia continue to chafe at the fact that much of this life-saving information might never make it to bedside, but for the indirect financial support of drug and device manufacturers.
Of course, as the article suggests, it stands to reason that drug manufacturers are more likely to offer educational grants in therapeutic areas where the company has made a research commitment. But to jump to the conclusion that patients are better off if their doctors go without continuing medical education due to a theoretical concern for the donor company’s profit motive is to ignore the obvious best interest of the patient.
I wish to also take this opportunity to correct a misperception inadvertently perpetuated by the article that “there have been cases that have raised questions about the integrity of CME.” In fact, the example chosen by the author was not an indictment of an actual accredited CME program, but rather a pharmaceutical marketing program that inaccurately claimed to be a CME program. Further, the CME Coalition was unable to find any examples from the last ten years where an accredited CME program was found to have run afoul of the strict anti-conflict of interest provisions of the nation’s recognized accrediting bodies. Accredited CME has demonstrated an exemplary record of ethical compliance.
Finally, Ms. Lee’s article cited a JAMA study from last December that we believe grossly overstated the amount of money spent on CME by pharmaceutical manufacturers in 2010, and that inaccurately blended the definitions of accredited CME provider companies with medical communications companies, many of which engage in branding and promotion activities. Although the author had no way of knowing this, we are in discussions with JAMA regarding our concerns.
I wish to also take this opportunity to correct a misperception inadvertently perpetuated by the article that “there have been cases that have raised questions about the integrity of CME.” In fact, the example chosen by the author was not an indictment of an actual accredited CME program, but rather a pharmaceutical marketing program that inaccurately claimed to be a CME program. Further, the CME Coalition was unable to find any examples from the last ten years where an accredited CME program was found to have run afoul of the strict anti-conflict of interest provisions of the nation’s recognized accrediting bodies. Accredited CME has demonstrated an exemplary record of ethical compliance.
Finally, Ms. Lee’s article cited a JAMA study from last December that we believe grossly overstated the amount of money spent on CME by pharmaceutical manufacturers in 2010, and that inaccurately blended the definitions of accredited CME provider companies with medical communications companies, many of which engage in branding and promotion activities. Although the author had no way of knowing this, we are in discussions with JAMA regarding our concerns.
