Skip to main content

New Restrictions on Financial Conflicts of Interest in CME


As reported in The Carlat Psychiatry Blog, the American Medical Association recently approved a report that may have substantial impacts on industry funding of continuing medical education. This report, authored by the AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, recommends:

"When possible, CME should be provided without [industry] support or the participation of individuals who have financial interests in the educational subject matter. " (page 99 of report)


What good is such a qualified recommendation from a mere report? The difference is that this report comes from, and was officially approved by, the AMA. The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), which certifies providers of CME, is tightly linked to the AMA, such that CME credits are labelled "AMA PRA Category 1 Credit". Thus, the ACCME will likely need to modify its Standards for Commercial Support to impose greater restrictions on how CME can be funded and on the use of speakers with financial conflicts of interest.

There is plenty of wiggle room in these recommendations. For example, the report concedes that in certain cases exceptions to restrictions on funding and speakers may be needed to permit access to high-quality events. Thus, it remains unclear how much this report and resultant changes in ACCME standards will actually change current practices.

Nonetheless, this is an important milestone in efforts to reduce conflicts of interest in CME.

Comments

thank you for sharing such nice information about Restriction for Financial conflicts.. i love to face this instead of going away...thank you for the post..
Anonymous said…
Emboldened to new heights of educational integrity with this clarion call will the AMA next be counseling the thousands of med and healthcare students (including minorities and financially disadvantaged) who currently receive scholarships from big pharma? A great opportunity to state their position on influence peddling went begging earlier this year when AMA received $250,000 from Pfizer for their Excellence in Medicine Awards.

Popular posts from this blog

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Does “compassionate deception” have a place in palliative care?

by: Olivia Gamboa (@Liv_g_g)

There is broad consensus in the medical community that lying to patients is unethical.  However, in the care of patients with dementia, the moral clarity of this approach blurs.  In her recent New Yorker article, “The Memory House,”  Larissa MacFarquhar provides an excellent portrait of the common devices of artifice, omission and outright deception that are frequently deployed in the care of patients with dementia.  She furthermore explores the historical and ethical underpinnings of the various approaches used in disclosing (or not) information to patients living with dementia.

Ms. MacFarquhar introduces the idea of “compassionate deception,” or the concept that withholding truths, or even promoting outright falsehoods, is a reasonable and even ethical choice for those caring for patients with dementia.  To the extent that it helps a person with dementia feel happier and calmer, allowing them to believe in a gentler reality (one in which, say, their spo…