CME

Pfizer to stop funding for-profit CME

Tracy Staton — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:20:16 -0400

Drug companies have been catching flak lately not only for their direct payments and gifts to doctors--such as speaking fees and travel--but for funding the kind of continuing medical education that physicians need to keep their licenses current. Well, Pfizer is backing away from some of that CME sponsorhip. The drugmaker will no longer back CME courses provided by for-profit, third-party companies. It will keep paying for courses offered by med schools, teaching hospitals and medical societies, though.

Why the new policy? Pfizer wants to stave off "the perception of a conflict of interest," Pfizer told Dow Jones. The company spent $80 million on CME classes last year, with less than half going to the sorts of groups that now will be barred from support.

Now the question is whether other drugmakers will follow suit. The industry as a whole spent more than $1 billion funding CME, the WSJ Health Blog notes; drugmakers leapt into CME sponsorship in a big way after the industry agreed it should educate docs rather than just entertaining them. As the funding has grown, so have worries about undue influence. Some academic hospitals have even pledged to stop offering classes paid for with industry money.

- check out the release from Pfizer
- read the Health Blog post
- see the Pharmafocus story

AMA won't ban industry-funded education

Tracy Staton — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:32:17 -0400

Pharma marketers can sigh with relief. The American Medical Association won't be banning industry-funded CME this year, at least. At the association's annual meeting, delegates opted against a proposal to bar drugmakers from sponsoring residencies and fellowships, live or online CME, speakers' bureaus, travel and lodging, and the like. "Industry support of professional education has raised concerns that threaten the integrity of medicine’s educational function," the proposal stated.

Apparently, there were some concerns about a sponsorship ban, too. So the controversial measure, which would also have banned industry gifts and detailing at med schools, will get further review instead.

- read the Pharmalot item

Arms twisted, pharma promises disclosure

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:59:55 -0400

Pharma knows that self-regulation is the best kind. That's why 12 drug and device makers have promised Sen. Chuck Grassley that they are working on plans to disclose CME grants. You know, the money companies spend to sponsor educational conferences for doctors--conferences where sponsors sometimes influence not only who speaks, but what those speakers say. Some companies are even pledging to disclose their support of patient groups such as the American Heart Association or the American Diabetes Association.

Eli Lilly already discloses its CME funding. In response to Grassley's prodding, Medtronic and AstraZeneca said they'd post payments for professional meetings and patient-advocacy groups on their company websites, beginning May 1 and August 1, respectively. Merck said it's "developing an action plan." Amgen and Abbott Labs have formed working groups to study the subject.

Only Schering-Plough balked. "We do not publish or have plans at the moment to publish a list of charitable contributions or educational grants that medical organizations have received from us," the company wrote Grassley. We'll see if that refusal stands.

- see the Los Angeles Times story
- check out the item in the WSJ Health Blog

ALSO: According to California's Public Interest Research Group, disclosure of doctor payments isn't working to enforce limits on those gifts. A new report on these payment limits concluded that drugmakers don't always count meals as "gifts," that some companies reserve the right to exceed the limits if they choose to, and others say they're following limits, but don't say what their limits are. Some don't even post their policies. Study

Related Articles:
Pharma racks up multibillion-dollar marketing bill. Pharma report
Senate investigates pharma influence on CME. Senate report
Australia eyes CME's ties to pharma. CME report

Pharma racks up multibillion-dollar marketing bill

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:59:56 -0400

Drug marketing spending is staggering when you think about it: companies shell out $5 billion on DTC ads and $19 billion on so-called "doctor education." Their return on investment here isn't too shabby either: of the $279 billion spent on prescription drugs in 2006, Americans chose brand names 80 percent of the time.

The numbers tell a story that sharpens up what's becoming an old argument. Drug companies say it's all about educating patients and keeping doctors up-to-date on the latest science and technology. Critics say common conditions fixed with cheaper drugs go undertreated, but those that require expensive brand-name meds--the meds that are most heavily advertised to patients and docs alike--get plenty of attention. These branded drugs also contribute to skyrocketing healthcare costs: even a few billion off the top of that brand-name-fueled $279 billion could help. Agreed?

- read the spending report from The Los Angeles Times

Related Articles:
AMA to study the impact of drug advertising. Report
Does the FDA do enough to regulate drug ads? Report