ACCME Considers Placing a Label on CME

By: Jackie O’Connor, CIS Marketing Associate
jacquelineoconnor@cis-partners.com

Following up on a previous CIS CME blog article, The ACCME (Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education) recently held ‘Calls for Comment’ on their website regarding new procedures that would differentiate between CME activities that are commercially funded and those that are not. “ACCME proposes to consider a new designation and review process for providers that wish to identify their program of CME as one that does not utilize funds from commercial interests that have been donated to support continuing medical education, e.g., Commercial Support-Free.”[1] The ‘ACCME-defined designation of Commercial Support –Free Accredited Continuing Medical Education’ has received responses from The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and The Alliance for Continuing Medical Education (The Alliance).

The Alliance does not support the proposed plan. They believe “that all continuing medical education for health care professionals should be unbiased and based on the rigor of scientific and clinical discovery regardless of funding source.”[2] Their concern is what this proposal is implying about the current CME system – that commercially funded CME courses are biased and inferior to those that are support-free. Offering their input, “The Alliance recommends that organizations receiving funds from advertising or promotion establish firewall between the promotional and education departments and not “bundle” education activities with promotional fees.”2 The ACCME needs to maintain a barrier between the organizations that fund the activities and the CME content.

PhRMA response shares similar concerns as the Alliance. PhRMA recognizes the influence that pharmaceutical manufacturers have in supporting quality CME programs. Creating two types of CME programs would indicate that the quality of the courses varies simply based on whether it was funded or not. They point out that their main concern is to focus on who could potentially be affected, for example, “ any distinction that creates such an inference potentially harms physicians and patients because educational programs may not be funded, notwithstanding documented needed, because Providers may believe that such a designation is important for their program.”[1]

The key issue is both PhRMA and The Alliance feel this new system is without merit, since there is no proven evidence that the CME providers affect the quality of the content and knowledge offered at sponsored events.

This isn’t a cut and dry situation, and putting label, especially one associated with a negative connotation, on CME programs could lead to a rift in communication and confidence in CME activities. The bottom line is that there shouldn’t be a difference in the content between sponsored and non-sponsored CME courses. The quality of knowledge and intentions should remain the same so that these courses are truly beneficial to those attending them, and to the end result, their patients.

Sources:
[1] http://policymed.typepad.com/files/phrma-letter-to-accme-5-27-09.pdf
[2] http://www.acme-assn.org/advocacy_pg/Alliance'sResponseToACCMEApril09CallForComments.doc
ACCME website:
http://www.accme.org/index.cfm/fa/alerts.detail/alert_id/d43685f0-0218-4c77-906c-f18ae16f24bf