April 2009 Archives

On Tuesday, April 28, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) made public its sweeping recommendations on "Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education and Practice."

While the tone of the IOM press material and draft report suggests a rather modest call for change in the relationships among the industry, organized medicine and prescribers, the press statements of the participants and a careful reading of the report (over 350 pages) illuminate an intent by the Committee to aggressively limit the role of the industry in organized medicine and policy making.

"The IOM recommendations seem both naïve and foolish," according to John Kamp, Executive Director of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication. "On the same day that the world's health leaders were working with research-based drug companies to address the possible swine flu pandemic, IOM proposed new limits on full participation in public health decision making and implementation. Instead of expanding prohibitions, enlightened leaders should embrace industry collaboration to advance the tangible and immediate health needs of the nation's citizens and move forward on long-needed health care reform."

Friday, April 10, 2009
ACCME today released the summary of its March Board of Directors Meeting. There are several significant announcements:

1. ACCME will NOT take any action to end the commercial support of CME, based upon the feedback from this past summer's Calls for Comments
   
2. The ACCME believes that its current Standards of Commercial Support enables the development of CME that is free from commercial bias nor influences practitioners into"unwarranted or unnecessary direct care."
3. ACCME will develop an enhanced monitoring system of CME activities
4. ACCME is considering new designations of activities that are "Commercial Support Free" and/or "Promotional Teacher and Author Free."
5. ACCME is considering an independent CME Funding Entity
6. ACCME adopted a "multi-step Rule Making Policy" that offers greater transparency in its decision making process.
7. ACCME reviewed 97 providers based upon 2006 accreditation criteria.

See their review results on the ACCME ACCME_ExecBoardSummary4_10_09.pdf. 

At first glance, these changes reflect that the ACCME has taken into consideration the input from many organizations - especially those that responded to the Calls for Comments - with a vested interest in insuring the continuation of a strong and independent CME industry.

PRelease-ACCME-Apr10_09.pdf.

For more information please contact:

Brad Bednarz bbednarz@visiblep.com
Marty Cearnal mcearnal@jobson.com
Mark Schaffer mark.schaffer@ppscme.com