Op-Ed portrays CME as crooked enterprise

Share this article:
The way pharmaceutical companies sponsor CME is akin to money laundering, a TuftsMedicalSchool professor asserted in a New York Times op-ed yesterday.

That’s because, while ACCME guidelines prevent drug firms from paying educational speakers directly, a “loophole” allows firms to hire for-profit medical education and communication companies (MECCs) to organize the courses, noted Daniel Carlat, a practicing psychiatrist and editor-in-chief of The Carlat Psychiatry Report, a sometimes irreverent monthly newsletter which Carlat says offers unbiased information on psychiatric practice.

MECCs get paid by pharma to create course work and pay doctors to deliver it, but the content is “rarely” developed by the identified experts, he argued. Instead, it is developed by the MECC.

Carlat's solution: limit drug firms to sponsoring promotional, non-accredited education. That is the best way to prevent situations like the one in which GlaxoSmithKline paid for CME courses that emphasized the benefits of diabetes drug Avandia over other drugs while downplaying Avandia’s cardiovascular risks, he stated.

Carlat is not the first to wage this argument. A 2006 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, exploring the “widespread influence” drug firms have over medical education, cited the provider-grantor relationship as a conflict of interest and said manufacturers should not be permitted to provide CME support “directly or indirectly.”

Guidelines may be getting more stringent, though. Following April's Senate Finance Committee Report on the use of educational grants by drug firms, CME authorities are exploring several ways of addressing what the committee called their "lack of proactive or real time oversight for educational grant programs." The ACCME will take up the issue at its board meeting next month.
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.

Email Newsletters

MM&M Future Leaders

Register now

Early bird $1,950 before 31 October 2014

*Group discounts available on request 


Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Channel

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Monday, September 15

Five things for pharma marketers to know: ...

Pharma has sought 76 meetings with FDA over biosimilars; Gilead licenses Sovaldi to India generic drugmakers; Pfizer and Ranbaxy Lipitor lawsuit dismissed.

Liraglutide, aiming for new indication, gets new name

Liraglutide, aiming for new indication, gets new name

Why Novo Nordisk is choosing not to leverage Victoza's brand equity as it seeks a weight-loss indication for liraglutide.

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Friday, September 12

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Friday, ...

An FDA panel voted in favor of liraglutide for weight loss; Allergan investors backing an attempted takeover of the firm crossed a critical threshold; and 100 million health wearables are ...