The Death of CME as We Know It?

Twitter icon
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
e-mail icon
Google icon

A variety of ills would ensue if industry support for meetings dried up

 
  Barry T. Katzen is course director of The International Symposium on Endovascular Therapy (ISET), and founder and medical director of Baptist Cardiac & Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla.

No one disputes the good of maintaining a healthy distance between the commercial interests of pharmaceutical and device companies and the continuing medical education (CME) needs of physicians. While the two remain inextricably intertwined, all of us clearly understand the potential danger in unchecked promotion masquerading as science. A medical professional’s decision about how to treat a patient should not depend upon how much money any given company has spent on marketing. Rather, our knowledge should be based on the collective intelligence of physicians who are willing to share with one another what works and does not work as gleaned from research, trials and experience. From this ideal comes the CME meeting.

Keeping CME meetings viable, however, very much involves the same companies that we must otherwise deal with at arm’s length. Without question, grants from companies that manufacture drugs and devices make most CME meetings possible. At the International Symposium on Endovascular Therapy (ISET), for example, such funding covers the expensive, but highly effective, teaching tool known as the live-case demonstration, an educational method I pioneered some two decades ago (see image above).

For practicing physicians, the opportunity to view in real-time procedures performed by experts at leading medical institutions and transmitted to, for example, a hotel ballroom that can seat hundreds, provides the best alternative to actually standing in the procedure room or going back to the classroom. Industry grants also defray the cost of bringing together recognized authorities from around the world to serve as faculty who comment on the live cases and deliver lectures. Other enhancements, such as instant polling that engages attendees and provides important feedback, likewise require the support of industry.

What would we give up?


Without industry support, ISET and similar meetings would otherwise have to charge physicians thousands of dollars in registration fees, a scenario that would lead to a variety of ills.

First, most doctors would have to rethink how often they attend national CME meetings. Many would certainly look at less-expensive online, journal-based and locally produced activities. Each of these has its place and contributes something to the overall goal of deepening a physician’s knowledge. As a main source of information, however, these options are limited—in the first two cases, by a lack of interactivity and, in the third, a potential lack of diversity in the views and experiences of the faculty.

Second, a decline in both grant support and attendance would force many well-regarded meetings to severely scale back or simply close up shop. The available choices for national CME would dwindle to a precious few, and the paramount goal of physician education for the good of the patient—the raison d’être of CME—would be compromised.

Third, and perhaps most disturbing, the very conflict of interest that the current and forthcoming guidelines governing industry/physician relations seek to minimize would grow tenfold. Monies that manufacturers today dedicate to the support of accredited meetings—those that can be called CME because they adhere to the rules set forth by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME)—would simply go toward marketing. Ironically, this creates a situation similar to the one that prompted the formation of the ACCME in the first place: Industry invites physicians to its own (non-accredited) meetings, to be wined and dined and learn only about a specific company product.

This scenario of precipitously reduced industry support of CME is not hypothetical; it is already reality. Current and forthcoming guidelines set by the ACCME, trade industry groups that lobby for the pharmaceutical and device industries, and companies themselves (through formal regulatory/compliance departments), as well as, potentially, the government, have and will continue to exert a dampening effect on funding. Many of these responses are prompted by government actions against perceived abuses, many of which have nothing to do with CME but, rather, with marketing-driven activities.

Beyond the negative impact on funding, however, changes