In a post that begins, "CME has become tainted," DB's Medical Rants--a physician-run blog--has lots to say about the new ACCME Standards for Commercial Support:
- This rule appears solid on surface review. The problem will be in finding experts without conflict of interest. In many fields, virtually all the experts receive some pharmaceutical support (often for drug trials).
I suspect that we will see a new specialty arise in CME. Those who have no financial ties will become the truth arbiters. And again on surface review this seems logical.
I worry that these new experts will have another axe to grind. None of us is without bias. Those who accept no pharmaceutical moneys (and I am included here) may have an anti-pharmaceutical company bias. They may tend towards therapeutic nihilism (at least until the evidence is overwhelming).
Among the comments on his post:
- We re pushing this issue to the extreme at the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sooner or later the drug companies will say uncle and divert their marketing resources to consumer advertising. It s already getting harder to obtain industry support for CME...What will be next? Expert speakers at Grand Rounds? Meet the Professor sessions? Medscape? In fact, why not save a lot of money at these meetings and just bring in a medical librarian to lead the audience through Pub Med searches of various topics?
And from another gentleman:
- The attempts to control pharma marketing are similar to attempts to control political spending. When you squeeze the balloon in one spot it just bulges someplace else. Next step the medical equivalent of 527 organizations?
From Medpundit, a blog by a family physician:
- This is a much needed move, although it will probably make it all that much harder to find speakers for continuing education events. It will also put a damper on the exchange of ideas that flows at these meetings. Most doctors view speakers who promote their drug sponsor throughout a lecture with suspicion, anyways, although not all. However, given the way so many of these early ideas make it into the mainstream press as if they were well-founded treatment recommendations, thanks to press releases and invitations to health reporters to attend the conference, it's a necessary change. The influence of the press on public perception of what is and isn't good medicine can't be ignored. Overall, the recommendations should improve the quality of physician - and public - medical education.
To comment on this post, click on "comments" below. To receive a weekly update, e-mail Sue.
In a post that begins, "CME has become tainted," DB's Medical Rants--a physician-run blog--has lots to say about the new ACCME Standards for Commercial Support:
- This rule appears solid on surface review. The problem will be in finding experts without conflict of interest. In many fields, virtually all the experts receive some pharmaceutical support (often for drug trials).
I suspect that we will see a new specialty arise in CME. Those who have no financial ties will become the truth arbiters. And again on surface review this seems logical.
I worry that these new experts will have another axe to grind. None of us is without bias. Those who accept no pharmaceutical moneys (and I am included here) may have an anti-pharmaceutical company bias. They may tend towards therapeutic nihilism (at least until the evidence is overwhelming).
Among the comments on his post:
- We re pushing this issue to the extreme at the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sooner or later the drug companies will say uncle and divert their marketing resources to consumer advertising. It s already getting harder to obtain industry support for CME...What will be next? Expert speakers at Grand Rounds? Meet the Professor sessions? Medscape? In fact, why not save a lot of money at these meetings and just bring in a medical librarian to lead the audience through Pub Med searches of various topics?
And from another gentleman:
- The attempts to control pharma marketing are similar to attempts to control political spending. When you squeeze the balloon in one spot it just bulges someplace else. Next step the medical equivalent of 527 organizations?
From Medpundit, a blog by a family physician:
- This is a much needed move, although it will probably make it all that much harder to find speakers for continuing education events. It will also put a damper on the exchange of ideas that flows at these meetings. Most doctors view speakers who promote their drug sponsor throughout a lecture with suspicion, anyways, although not all. However, given the way so many of these early ideas make it into the mainstream press as if they were well-founded treatment recommendations, thanks to press releases and invitations to health reporters to attend the conference, it's a necessary change. The influence of the press on public perception of what is and isn't good medicine can't be ignored. Overall, the recommendations should improve the quality of physician - and public - medical education.
To comment on this post, click on "comments" below. To receive a weekly update, e-mail Sue.
