Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / August 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Changes in Store for Industry-Funded Doctors' Education

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MarilynMann - 15 Aug 2007 21:48 GMT
August 15, 2007, 12:58 pm
Changes in Store for Industry-Funded Doctors' Education
Posted by Jacob Goldstein

Now that the feds are picking up the tab for many Medicare patients'
prescription drugs, some senators are prying into doctors' continuing
medical education, or CME. Their questions could lead to changes in
how CME, which most states require for doctors to renew their
licenses, is funded and monitored.

The senators want to know whether the billion dollars a year the drug
and device industries are pouring into CME winds up making doctors
prescribe too many expensive, brand-name medicines and devices. One of
the guys they're asking is Murray Kopelow, the M.D. who runs the
Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, which watches
over more than 700 CME providers.

In a recent conversation with the Health Blog, Kopelow said ACCME will
likely start sending auditors to CME lectures. "We could have trained
monitors observing CME presentations and reporting their findings to
us," to see whether the presentations are straying from the rules, he
said. The group hasn't yet decided whether the monitors would work
undercover.

CME providers that step out of line might find themselves facing
sanction more quickly and more often. Providers now have several years
to clean up their act, and only one provider or so a year loses its
accreditation. "The Senate and others have said we don't ... have as
heavy a hand as we could. The ACCME is going to talk about that,"
Kopelow said.

The way money passes from drug and device companies to CME providers
could also change, Kopelow said. Now, a provider applies to a company
for funding, and the company decides whether to grant the request.

This can lead to what Kopelow calls "curriculum bias." What gets
taught in industry-funded CME tends to be the subjects companies wants
doctors to learn about. So CME on new diabetes drugs might find
industry funding more easily than CME on ways to help diabetics lose
weight and change their diet to stay off drugs altogether.

One idea Kopelow's group is considering would put industry money in a
central pot that is then allocated by medical professional societies.
"That would mean that the patients' needs and the profession's needs
would be driving the curriculum," he said.

Comments

Sending monitors to lectures sounds fine until you start spending time
doing the montoring, as I have. Pro-industry bias is rarely blatant,
and often operates by choosing certain studies to highlight, and
others to downplay, or omit altogether. It virtually always requires
someone with extensive medical training to recognize the presence of
this bias. My entire blog (The Carlat Psychiatry Blog) is devoted to
blowing the whistle on biased industry-funded CME in psychiatry, and
it's no picnic for me to tease it out. I can't imagine how the ACCME
would be able to afford to pay armies of physicians to monitor even a
small sampling of the thousands of commercial CME events per year.

Comment by Daniel Carlat, M.D. - August 15, 2007 at 1:39 pm

*  *  *

I highly recommend Dr. Carlat's blog.

Marilyn
William Wagner - 15 Aug 2007 22:01 GMT
> Carlat Psychiatry Blog

Any chance for a URL?  I found a it difficult navigate.

Thanks!

Bill

Signature

S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade

This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.

http://www.ocutech.com/  High tech Vison aid

MarilynMann - 15 Aug 2007 22:43 GMT
> In article <1187210938.548029.165...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Bill

http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
Port@nospam.invalid - 15 Aug 2007 22:15 GMT
>changes in
>how CME, which most states require for doctors to renew their
>licenses, is funded and monitored.

It hadn't occured to me that doctors don't pay for the *own* CPE.
As a CPA, I'm required to have 40 hrs CPE per year. It's very seldom
that I find any of it "free".  Some of our seminars are combined with
Lawyer's CPE so I think they have to pay for most of their own too.
And it's not cheap!
Granted, we sometimes have a speaker that I suspect is trying to sell
us something. But mostly we have college professors and/or experts in
one field or another that are simply updating us or passing along what
they know.
I wonder what percentage of a doctor's CPE is "free".

Port
MarilynMann - 15 Aug 2007 23:52 GMT
On Aug 15, 5:15 pm, P...@nospam.invalid wrote:
> >changes in
> >how CME, which most states require for doctors to renew their
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Port

I'm a lawyer, and most CLE is not free.  However, I work for the SEC
and we get a certain number of free spots in certain conferences for
which we provide speakers.  Luckily for me, I'm only admitted in DC
and the DC Bar has no CLE requirement.

Marilyn
Port@nospam.invalid - 16 Aug 2007 01:29 GMT
>I'm a lawyer, and most CLE is not free.

Part of the CLE requirement for Lawyers here, for quite a few years,
has been a couple of hours of "ethics" training (was always a source
of good natured ribbing from the CPAs). And now, since the Enron
debacle, CPAs have a two hour ethics requirement as well. Maybe
doctors are next?  We'll see I guess.
But here's what bothers me. According to your post, it's our
legislators that are looking into the CME situation. And those are the
very guys who are *really* making out like bandits with the
pharmaceutical lobby. It's hard to imagine how much "oversight"
they'll be willing to take on given the fact they'll be stepping on
their benefactors toes.
I've never given it much thought until now. But I'll bet most docs
have forgotten most of what they learned years ago in Med School (I
know can't remember squat about what I learned in college).  I'm
having these visions of Docs getting their CME hours by sitting around
watching Pzizer TV commercials. It's all kinda scary when you think
about it.

Port
Port@nospam.invalid - 16 Aug 2007 01:32 GMT
Port wrote:
>Pzizer TV commercials

Oops.... Pfizer.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 16 Aug 2007 02:25 GMT
friend P...@nospam.invalid wrote:

> >I'm a lawyer, and most CLE is not free.
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> have forgotten most of what they learned years ago in Med School (I
> know can't remember squat about what I learned in college).

It's different when you are using what you have learned both in the
care of patients, in clinical research, and in re-certification.

> I'm
> having these visions of Docs getting their CME hours by sitting around
> watching Pzizer TV commercials. It's all kinda scary when you think
> about it.

What one is able to imagine always has the potential of being scarier
than what actually is happening in reality.

Be hungry...  be healthy... be happy... be blessed:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
MarilynMann - 27 Aug 2007 21:41 GMT
from The Carlat Psychiatry Blog:

Monday, August 27, 2007

ACCME's "New" Policies, Translated

On 8/24, ACCME announced 7 new policies that will go into effect as of
January 1, 2008. Some of these were probably motivated by the Senate
Finance Committee's critical report, but I assume that these don't
represent ACCME's definitive response (or at least I desperately hope
not!). You can read the new policies yourself here, but unless you
have been through an application for accreditation, as I have, don't
expect to understand what is being said. I've taken the liberty of
translating each of their impenetrable pronouncements below, along
with some commentary along the way.

New Policy # 1: If you make an agreement to provide a CME activity for
a drug company, make sure to sign the document. Huh? This is new? It's
a little bit alarming that this needs to be spelled out.

New Policy # 2: Drug companies are no longer allowed to tell you how
to produce the CME they sponsor. Okay, I guess this is an admission
that, in fact, companies had been able to directly influence CME
content for all these years. I'm shocked, just shocked.

New Policy # 3: If you produce a web-based CME program, you can no
longer conveniently leave off the fact that it is industry-sponsored
from the first few web pages, as many providers were doing. This was a
rather slimy way of roping doctors into an activity before they
realized that it was just another promotional fluff piece. Thus, this
policy enhances disclosure. Problem is, disclosure by itself does
nothing to prevent promotional content. It only provides the illusion
of objectivity.

New Policy # 4: Drug companies can't put links to CME programs on
their websites. This allows providers to more effectively hide the
fact that you are about to watch a drug ad in the guise of education.
Bad idea.

New Policy # 5: You know all that pesky disclosure stuff that we've
always required you to do? Well, now we're serious. You really have to
do it. And this is a new policy...how???

New Policy # 6: We've changed our official definition of "commercial
interest." But don't worry, after listening to the concerns of all the
for-profit Medical Education Communication Companies, we've made
certain that our new definition won't disrupt business as usual. The
crux here is that a "commercial interest" is not allowed to produce
CME. As you can imagine, any redefinition of commercial interest
generates high anxiety among MECCs. To the rest of the world, any
company that makes all of their income by taking grants from drug
companies and producing education that relates to their products,
would be defined as a "commercial interest." But somehow, ACCME has
tweaked, massaged, nay, Shiatsued language as we know it to ensure
that MECC's remain blissfully non-commercial. This way, they can
continue to make loads of money!

New Policy # 7: If you teach a CME activity, you can get two hours of
CME credit for every hour of credit you teach. Excellent! That nets me
24 extra CME credits per year for writing The Carlat Psychiatry
Report! Now this is policy I can get behind.

Bottom-line: The status quo finds ever more elaborate ways of
maintaining the status quo.

Posted by Daniel Carlat, M.D. at 8:48 AM

http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2007/08/accmes-new-policies-translated.html

*  *  *
As I've done before, I am posting something that I know very little
about and which has no direct effect on me . . . partly because I
enjoy Dr. Carlat's sarcasm.

Marilyn
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.