Recently in Conflict of Interest Category

A new study by four researchers from the Cleveland Clinic showed that industry support of continuing medical education created no bias among participants.

The study is available here:CME_Kawczak_Acad Med.pdf

Healthcare industry expert Peter Pitts has enlightening comments on the paper in his DrugWonks blog on the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest Web site. You can view his comments here: http://drugwonks.com/blog_post/show/7182

We invite your comments! 

Interesting discussion on why corporate backing of medical research is NOT a bad thing:

Corporate Backing for Research? Get Over It!
John Tierney in the New York Times, Jan. 25, 2010

Hyperscrutiny of Academic-Industrial Relationships: Potential for Unintended Consequences
Tom Sullivan's Policy and Medicine Blog, Jan. 27, 2010

More thoughts on the issue on Tom Sullivan's Policy and Medicine Blog

Read about it and join the discussion here.

Continuing his "ongoing probe into conflicts of interest" Senator Chuck Grassley this week sent letters to the American Medical Association, Alzheimer's Association, the American Cancer Society and 30 other disease and medical advocacy organizations asking them to provide details about the amount of money that they and their directors receive from drug and device makers. Read more, including Senator Grassley's letter, in Thomas Sullivan's Policy and Medicine Blog.

In a recent editorial, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) cited the Macy Report, the AMA's CEJA report, JAMA, and the massive IOM report, saying "These reports and opinions start from a basic premise that any engagement with the pharmaceutical industry is a conflict and must be eliminated. But the AAFP does not accept this "good money/bad money" hypothesis, and neither do most professional associations. Pharmaceutical and other companies have a significant role to play in informing health care professionals about the availability and proper use of medications and other therapies."  See full article below.
Download PDF:  AFFP_CME_Oct09.pdf

Coalition tells Senate committee that real patient interests trump potential "Conflicts of Interest" as nation expands access to care. Read the Coalition's letter: Kohl_Ltr_July09.pdf 

View related press release: Release28July09.pdf

As the controversy around the commercial support of CME continues, ACCME is considering significant policy changes that could dramatically change industry support of both certified and promotional education programs. For example, one recent proposal would prohibit faculty thought leaders from participating in both CME and promotional programs.  View responses.

For more information contact:

Brad Bednarz bbednarz@visiblep.com

Marty Cearnal mcearnal@jobson.com

Mark Schaffer mark.schaffer@ppscme.com

The public debate on these issues has reached a critical juncture and your participation can help shape the debate. Help support our industry by insuring that our Nation's clinicians and patients are empowered with the latest developments in medical information.

Thank you

John Kamp

Executive Director

Coalition for Healthcare Communication

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.

AMA's CEJA Report Revised Before June 14th AMA Meeting
Coalition Encourages Discussion and Comments

In response to feedback on its original report, the AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) on June 9th recommended important revisions to its report, "Financial Relationships with Industry in Continuing Medical Education" to be considered for submission to the AMA House of Delegates on June 14th.

The CEJA recommendation and specific, more recent feedback acted upon by the CEJA are available here:

CEJA Recommendation:
CEJA_Recommendation_Jun09.pdf

Analysis and Recommendation by John Kamp on behalf of the Coalition:
CEJA_Recomendations_Kamp_Jun8_09.pdf

Recommendation by the Council on Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS)
CMSS_Response_CEJA_Jun09.pdf

Recommendation by The Alliance for Continuing Medical Education
Alliance_Response_CEJA_Jun09.pdf

If you would like to discuss these important CME issues, please visit the Coalition's LinkedIn Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1981721

The Coalition and others will also be producing comments, and they will be announced on our LinkedIn Group

For more information please contact:

Brad Bednarz bbednarz@visiblep.com
Marty Cearnal mcearnal@jobson.com
Mark Schaffer mark.schaffer@ppscme.com
John Kamp jkamp@cohealthcom.org

The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) of the American Medical Association (AMA)has recently submitted a report titled "Financial Relationships with Industry in Continuing Medical Education" to a reference committee of the AMA, to be considered for submission to the AMA House of Delegates on June 14th. Although the report is less stifling than last year's, it still contains some views that the Coalition finds destructive to collaboration and patient care.

Specifically, the report

• begins with the assumption that industry funding and industry/prescriber collaboration creates an inherent conflict of interest
• is not research based
• does not provide prescribers appropriate and useful ethical guidance
• would further erode industry support and collaboration to the detriment of patient care

The Coalition, other organizations and industry leaders believe it is important for the report to be returned for further revision.

Lewis A. Miller, MS, CCMEP, has written a very good comment paper in response to the report. You can view it here.

MORE COMMENTS:
AACE-ACE (Endocrinologists)

If you would like to discuss these important CME issues, please visit the Coalition's LinkedIn Group.

The Coalition and others will also be producing comments, and they will be announced on our LinkedIn Group

For more information please contact:

Brad Bednarz bbednarz@visiblep.com
Marty Cearnal mcearnal@jobson.com
Mark Schaffer mark.schaffer@ppscme.com
John Kamp jkamp@cohealthcom.org

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."