Free Newsletter
Pfizer funds new, 'unbiased' CME at Stanford
Pfizer and Stanford University are teaming up to develop new CME courses. That's nothing new; drug companies fund new CME all the time. What is new is that Stanford will use $3 million in Pfizer funding specifically to develop CME that's free of any and all pharma industry influence.
"It's a fundamental change," Stanford's med school dean Dr. Philip Pizzo tells the New York Times. Pizzo says that the drug industry in the past has tainted CME with marketing messages. Plus, doctors have been too willing to take CME-related speaker fees and go on CME junkets, he adds.
According to Stanford, Pfizer will have no say in its use of the money. "The Pfizer grant comes with no conditions, and the company will not be involved in developing the curriculum," a medical school press release states (as quoted by the Times). The university will set up new programs to take place on campus, rather than in hotel ballrooms or at resorts. Pfizer says that it wants to help revamp CME financing to ensure their independence and their benefits to patients.
Some industry-watchers have applauded both Stanford and Pfizer for the arrangement. "It's fair to say Stanford is once again leading the pack," says David Rothman, who's criticized academic conflicts of interest in JAMA. Others, however, are skeptical. "The announcement is self-satirizing," Georgetown University professor Adriane Fugh-Berman tells the Times. We'll have to wait and see how the courses turn out.
- see the NYT story
Related Articles:
Pfizer funds Canadian CME, prompting outcry
Glaxo to stop funding commercial CME
Merck, Schering spent $60M on CME
Pharma-funded CME gets the lash
Comments
By Mike Wokasch | Posted 1:31pm | January 15, 2010
Unrestricted grants are not a new concept. I’m not sure how, or if, this is different. While Stanford control and lack of Pfizer input on specific content may be the implied distinction being proposed here, that has been the intent and practice of many unrestricted pharmaceutical industry grant supported programs including many ACCME programs in the past. Without more transparency about the negotiations that took place surrounding this grant, it is hard to understand how identifying “programs of mutual interest†with “milestone†payments hasn’t already or isn’t going to influence what topics are going to be covered in these Pfizer sponsored Stanford programs.
It appears that Pfizer merely found the price point at which Stanford was willing to compromise its previously stated position (Stanford Report dated September 13, 2006 “New Policy Limits Drug Industry Accessâ€) that “industry-directed funding may compromise the integrity of these education programsâ€. The $3 million seems to have also moderated Dr. Pizzo’s concern about “the pervasive presence of the pharmaceutical industry in the medical profession†and his desire for Stanford educational activities to “not be influenced by any kind of financial industry support.â€
A couple of things must have happened. Either Stanford could not find sufficient alternative sources of funding for their continuing medical education department and/or the $3 million was just too hard to turn down.
I guess everything still has a price; you just have to figure out what it is. This relationship based on a $3.0 million grant does not help move CME forward for the industry, academia or healthcare providers. It provides validation for those who continue to be concerned about financial influences of the industry. Pfizer merely proved that even Stanford can’t resist…when the price is right.
Mike Wokasch www.pharmareform.com
Post new comment
Paid Research Reports
- The Specialty Pharma Market Outlook: Key players, new company growth models and emerging opportunities
- Investigating Clinical Trial Costs: Comparative analysis of trial cost components in key geographies
- Clinical Trial Recruitment Strategies: Optimizing patient recruitment and retention in late stage clinical trials
- Pipeline Insight: Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines - Prospect of first approval set to reinvigorate interest from major companies
- Stakeholder Opinions: Vaccines in Emerging Markets (Asia) - Opportunities in China, India, South Korea and Taiwan
- Big Pharma Performance Before, During and Beyond the Global Recession
SHARE
WITH: