The Pooled CME Model: A True Gift

Industry members, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has handed you a gift, even though you might be insulted by its recent proposal that you adopt a centrally funded CME model. From our back-of-the-envelope calculations, we can’t figure out how pharma loses with this proposition, only gains from it—including some public credibility.

But first, for those who don’t know what happened recently: The AGA proposed at a recent meeting that its pharma supporters contribute to a general fund for its CME activities. AN AGA education committee would determine the curriculum. But, “If required … AGA would guarantee companies to produce one program in a therapeutic area of interest to the supporter,” according to the Medical Marketing and Media article.

Industry members who heard the proposal weren’t exactly in love with the idea.

But, if they thought about it, they could at least grow to like it. One well known study has shown that physicians aren’t exactly aware of when industry has paid for the CME courses they’re taking, although they seem to be aware of the drug ads in the journals.

If the former is true, and it’s true that industry expects to recoup $3.56 for every dollar it invests in CME, then what difference does it make what the money pays for? Pharma only wins here. It is helping educate physicians, and it can say to its critics, “See, we are supporting well done CME and not involved in influence-peddling.”

Industry shouldn’t fear the change here—pharma should fear that it’s passing up a great opportunity to deal with a meddlesome transparency issue.

Another CME World

For argument’s sake, let’s say there is bias in CME and industry will no longer continue funding ongoing training for physicians – in real life, that’s what will be happening at the University of Michigan Medical School.

So let’s imagine a world without industry-sponsored CME.

Let’s say that money isn’t a problem. Let’s say that doctors will ante up and fund their ongoing education, either through their society dues or directly out of their own pockets.

Now let’s talk about the content of those courses. Where is the content going to come from? Certainly researchers and physicians from various schools will want to talk about what’s going on in their labs and clinics, but what about what the medications? In this country, industry develops drugs. In this country, smaller universities and the federal government do much of the basic research, and through licensing deals industry takes it from there.

Developing the information around new therapies, existing therapies and new product extensions are the roles of the drug manufacturer. They were at one time perceived to have most of the knowledge on drug therapy and devices that improved certain diseases.

One of the things that gnaws at us the most about this whole transparency dust-up: It doesn't seem that the purists have offered alternatives to filling the void of education on innovative drug therapies. What’s in place now, is known to have inherent bias, because health care professionals are naturally skeptical. Doctors need continuing education to stay clinically sharp– we as patients want them to have the most up-to-date information  because they will not stay on top of this information unless the continuing education comes to them. Have you looked at Pub Med lately? It’s impossible to keep up.

Industry and clinicians have been working together for years. Making the relationship transparent -- and yes, we agree it should be -- must be done with respect and dignity. Let's figure a way to find solutions to educate physicians about drug therapy.  Otherwise, we believe patient care could be impacted.  And that would not be good.