Since each company has different policies regarding whether or not they can approve or even review grant requests that include faculty names, Rand said, it's important to find out the policy of the commercial supporter you are approaching or you may get a decline letter and not know why. Takeda does approve appropriate and compliant grants that include faculty names, Beebe said. However, Mayhew recommended not including faculty names in proposals for Pfizer. Under the terms of a court settlement, Pfizer cannot fund grants if speakers named in the proposal have been promotional speakers for their companies during the 12 months prior to the grant request. (Merck is under similar restrictions.) Commercial supporters' policies regarding this and other issues should be posted on their Web sites, but to get answers to your specific questions, you may need to call, panelists said.

While providers know that supporters will reject grant requests that focus on brand names, some grantors will also look at the number of times treatments are mentioned by their scientific names, said Rand, as part of their evaluation of the proposed activity's overall balance. “Some requestors think that by mentioning a company's products multiple times, the chances of approval may increase,” Rand said. But those mentions may have the opposite effect, she said.

When describing outcomes measurements, it's particularly problematic to mention changes in prescribing behavior, Rand said, as the goal of activities should be to close identified educational gaps that may or not have anything to do with prescribing behavior.

Another potential trouble spot is including a section of an outcomes study from a prior activity if the example you choose has to do with a specific treatment, as it could look biased to review committees at some companies, Rand said. n

Sidebar #1: Code Blue for Resort Meetings?

The revised PhRMA Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals, which went into effect in January, states that resorts are inappropriate venues for meetings sponsored by pharma companies, such as consultant meetings. But what about CME events? Polled via an audience-response system, attendees at a grant-writing session at the Alliance for CME annual conference about were asked whether it was acceptable to hold conferences in ski resorts. The largest number of respondents — 53 percent — said no, because of the perception issue. Twenty-five percent said ski resorts are acceptable sites as long as the education, rather than skiing, is the focus of the conference; while 22 percent of respondents were on the fence.

However, the speakers from pharmaceutical companies were much more definite. “Nine times out of 10, if we see a ski resort on the grant application, we will decline the application because of that,” said Jacqueline Mayhew, director, medical education group, Pfizer, N.Y. Her fellow panelists, Christine Beebe, MS, associate director, medical affairs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Deerfield, Ill.; and Kristin Rand, JD, group manager, Genentech, South San Francisco, agreed.

A frustrated audience member from a medical specialty society pointed out that the PhRMA code specifically states that accredited providers should control all aspects of CME, including venue selection. “How can you say you comply with the PhRMA code and then decline grants for meetings held at resorts?” she asked.

”Yes, it is up to you to choose the venue, and you can choose resorts, but commercial supporters may not be able to support the grant due to internal corporate policies,” responded Rand.

Sidebar #2: The Panelists

Jacqueline Mayhew, director, medical education group, Pfizer, New York

Christine Beebe, MS, associate director, medical affairs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Deerfield, Ill.

Kristin Rand, JD, group manager, Genentech, South San Francisco