I have published previous notes about the influence that some pharmaceutical companies try to exert over continuing medical education (CME) events (see: Growth of Online CME Interpreted as Bad News for Pharma Marketers). The pharmaceutical industry has been much in the news lately regarding its ethical behavior in clinical trials (see: The Vytorin Study Controversy - Now Congress is Getting Into the Act). Controversy has also arisen about the "detailing" of office physicians by pharmaceutical companies, particularly regarding the off-label use of drugs (see: Characteristics and Impact of Drug Detailing for Gabapentin). The consequences of all of this is that support for pharmaceutical underwriting of CME activities is waning. Some medical societies are taking steps to correct the situation (see: Pets Welcome, Pharma Not at Oregon CME Event). Below is an excerpt from the article:
The Oregon Academy of Family Physicians (OAFP)...is hosting its 61st Annual CME Weekend at Salishan Spa and Golf Resort in Glendale Beach, OR this May. There'll be plenty of golf, tennis, beach activities, spa rejuvenation, wining and dining, kiting, and shopping at this "pet friendly" lodge, but pharmaceutical companies are verbotin!...As the program guide says, this event is "Pharma Free: The OAFP is 100% free of any pharmaceutical company funding or support. Consequently, this CME conference has dispensed with a traditional exhibit hall." ..."We're still putting on CME seminars, of course {said the OAFP executive director], but ...not taking any unrestricted grants, so we’re looking for other financial support....We're attracting interest from some health plans and hospital systems, people we've not traditionally approached in the past. It's more work to get those sources, but there are also electronic medical records companies and insurance companies. So it's possible."
Exhibitors fulfill two important functions at the lab software conferences that I have managed for 26 years and, frankly, I would not have been able to offer such conferences without their support. First of all, they have provided the bulk of the funding for the conferences. Registration fees set at a reasonable level are insufficient to support high-quality conferences these days. Secondly, the exhibitors play an important pedagogic role by providing demonstrations and information about their products. Unlike the pharmaceutical companies that spend many millions of dollars detailing physicians in their offices, lab software companies depend on conferences like Lab InfoTech Summit for interacting with potential customers.
In all of my years of presenting lab software conferences, I have never seen any instances of what I would consider undue or inappropriate influence being exerted by an exhibitor on registrants.
I am trying to understand the need for "pharma free" conferences for clinicians at the same time that I would never consider holding an "exhibitor free" conference in my specialty area. Is it the case that the ground rules have evolved differently in the clinician/pharmaceutical sector and that there were much higher expectations on the part of the clinicians for being wined-and-dined at conference resorts? And did this process escalate over time and become unmanageable, causing the need to offer "pharma-free" conferences?
Comments