Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Reducing industry support of CME has unspoken consequences

Derek Warnick
Education
March 29, 2012
Share
Tweet
Share

I have worked in continuing medical education for 12 years and the argument over industry support of CME has grown tired and wearisome. Truth be told, I’m sick of it. I have always been a staunch defender of industry support of CME – and still am, for the most part – but listening to the same old arguments on both sides of the issue has become akin to the Elmo CD my 5-year-old daughter listens to every night at bedtime: so much background noise.

So, when the CME community made a kerfuffle over the recent perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine (Industry Support of CME — Are We at the Tipping Point?), it took me awhile to work up the motivation to click on the link and read it. As expected, the authors clearly favor restrictions to the funding of CME by industry, though they do not approach the issue with the zealotry of others I have read. However, one sentence in particular struck a chord with me. At the very end of the sixth paragraph, the authors state,

… in addition, removing the financial conflicts of interest of CME providers will probably yield a more balanced mix of content, since the existing system provides incentives for developing symposia focused on drug therapy so as to attract industry sponsors.

Probably. Will “probably” yield a more balanced mix of content. This is my problem with the anti-industry support argument – the reliance on vernacular like “probably” and “might” and “possibly” and “perceived.” If we remove speakers with conflicts of interest, content will “probably” be better balanced. If there are more restrictions on industry support, there will “probably” be beneficial effects on CME. I don’t know about you, but in my work, “probably” isn’t good enough. “Probably” isn’t acceptable.

Prove to me that content will be better balanced if we remove all speakers with a financial conflict of interest. Prove to me that a decrease in industry funding will have beneficial effects for CME. Show me research. Show me data. Enough with opinions – show me something.

Why does this issue matter so much to me?

(This is the part of the narrative where I’m supposed to launch into a diatribe about how these restrictions will hurt CME because it will mean that top faculty will not be used and innovation will be suppressed due to lack of funding. I’m not going to do that.)

People are going to lose their jobs because of it. People are losing their jobs because of it (trust me, I know). If there is less money to fund CME, there is less money to pay the people who develop it. These people are my colleagues and friends. They are dedicated professionals who have given their careers to the education of physicians. They are the human element no one thinks of whenever the issue of reducing or eliminating industry support of CME comes up. They deserve to have their fate decided by evidence stronger than “probably.”

It is easy to sit in an ivory tower and opine over the probable outcomes of reducing commercial support in CME. Just remember, these opinions, and the decisions that they affect, are not done in a vacuum. They have dramatic, real life consequences beyond those normally discussed in medical journals and editorials in the New York Times. There will be layoffs because of them. Companies will shut down because of them. Departments will close because of them. People will go on unemployment because of them. Not maybe. Not probably. They will. They are.

But, I’m a reasonable person. If you can show me evidence that the incorporation of these restriction in CME will improve physician practice and patient care, how can I argue against that? If more people are healthier and more lives are saved because of less industry dollars rolling around in CME, then maybe the loss of jobs and affect on personal lives in the CME community will be worth it. Right now, though, I’m not seeing that evidence.

You can tell me that reducing industry support will “probably” be beneficial to CME. I can tell you it “definitely” means a reduction in the CME workforce. If this is the path we’re going to go down, you better be right.

Derek Warnick is a CME Director who blogs at Confessions of a Medical Educator.

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

ADVERTISEMENT

Prev

Physicians should rise up against mandated transvaginal ultrasounds

March 29, 2012 Kevin 31
…
Next

Doctors need to find meaning in their work

March 30, 2012 Kevin 7
…

Tagged as: Primary Care, Specialist

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Physicians should rise up against mandated transvaginal ultrasounds
Next Post >
Doctors need to find meaning in their work

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Derek Warnick

  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Bias in CME due to the presence of commercial support is overrated

    Derek Warnick
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    The CME community is late to adopt social media

    Derek Warnick

More in Education

  • Why medical schools must ditch lectures and embrace active learning

    Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA
  • Why helping people means more than getting an MD

    Vaishali Jha
  • Residency match tips: Building mentorship, research, and community

    Simran Kaur, MD and Eva Shelton, MD
  • How I learned to stop worrying and love AI

    Rajeev Dutta
  • Why medical student debt is killing primary care in America

    Alexander Camp
  • Why the pre-med path is pushing future doctors to the brink

    Jordan Williamson, MEd
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • Why health care leaders fail at execution—and how to fix it

      Dave Cummings, RN | Policy
    • How digital tools are reshaping the doctor-patient relationship

      Vineet Vishwanath | Tech
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
  • Recent Posts

    • Why point-of-care ultrasound belongs in every emergency department triage [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why PSA levels alone shouldn’t define your prostate cancer risk

      Martina Ambardjieva, MD, PhD | Conditions
    • How to handle chronically late patients in your medical practice

      Neil Baum, MD | Physician
    • Reframing chronic pain and dignity: What a pain clinic teaches us about MAiD and chronic suffering

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
    • Why medicine must evolve to support modern physicians

      Ryan Nadelson, MD | Physician

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 8 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • Why health care leaders fail at execution—and how to fix it

      Dave Cummings, RN | Policy
    • How digital tools are reshaping the doctor-patient relationship

      Vineet Vishwanath | Tech
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
  • Recent Posts

    • Why point-of-care ultrasound belongs in every emergency department triage [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why PSA levels alone shouldn’t define your prostate cancer risk

      Martina Ambardjieva, MD, PhD | Conditions
    • How to handle chronically late patients in your medical practice

      Neil Baum, MD | Physician
    • Reframing chronic pain and dignity: What a pain clinic teaches us about MAiD and chronic suffering

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
    • Why medicine must evolve to support modern physicians

      Ryan Nadelson, MD | Physician

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Reducing industry support of CME has unspoken consequences
8 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...