This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
On_the_Web Read these previous Convene articles on CME funding and reporting:


 “The Health-Care Law and You”: bit.ly/Convene-Sunshine  “‘Stronger Than Concern & Weaker Than Panic’”: bit.ly/Convene-codes


ket the landscape with everythingwe could think of,” Johnson said. “Now we’re more strategic and targeted.” Another obvious, but too often ignored, piece of advice is


to study funders’ clinical goals and interests. Most companies post their educational objectives and priorities online. “If you have a better understanding of their educational goals for the year,” Hathaway Stella said, “you can be more strategic about submitting grant requests.” Pfizer, for example, recently announced that it was reorgan- izing its medical education group into two tracks. The major-


“Collaboration with academic institutions is likely to curry favor with pharmaceutical companies, because it broadens the reach of the educational activity.”


ity of grants—90 percent—will now be allocated through a request-for-proposal (RFP) process and will focus on a nar- rower group of clinical interests. Even though the company previously listed its clinical areas, said Maureen Doyle-Scharff, senior director of Pfizer’s Medical Education Group, too many proposals were off-target. A majority of those were rejected,


TIMELINE: INDUSTRY-BACKED CME


 The nonprofit Institute of Medicine releases Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, a report that calls for an end to educational grants from pharmaceu- tical and medical-device manufacturers and for a new fund- ing mechanism “free of industry influence.”


2010


 Pfizer, as part of the 2009 settlement, begins posting pay- ments made to health-care professionals — for meals, com- pensation, payments, and “transfers of value” of $25 or more— to its website. In 2011, the value is lowered to $10 or more.


and the process was a waste of both parties’ time. Rather than going it alone, some CME providers are team-


ing up to go after industry grants—including The Endocrine Society, which has focused on collaboration with other med- ical societies. Johnson said: “We’re lookingfor collaborative projects where we can engage in larger initiatives that bigger organizations may be able to help pull together.” HRS, meanwhile, has partnered successfully with the larger


American College of Cardiology (ACC). “We’ve been success- ful in developing content on cardiac rhythm management and atrial fibrillation to disseminate via ACC,” Scheck said. “We’re basically the content providers, funded by industry, with the money raised collaboratively with ACC.” Though MECCs are cut off from CME grants by pharma


giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (suspicion of bias has always hungheaviest around MECCs because they don’t have members to answer to), that doesn’t mean they can’t partner with a medical society or other CME provider. “We are look- ingat collaboration with medical education companies,” Scheck said, “where the Heart Rhythm Society might be the content provider and we’re putting our Good Housekeeping seal on a program they [MECCs] do.” Likewise, a MECC can help an association reach a broader


audience and provide more learningenvironments (local or web-based, for example)—somethingthat funders look for, Sullivan said. But don’t partner just for the sake of partnering. “You need to find a partner with a complementary skill set,” Sullivan said. “It has to be the right partner.” Gambill recommends that physician organizations explore collaborations with universities and medical schools, which are


www.pcma.org pcmaconvene April 2012 53


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116