Continuing Medical Education - Criticism of Industry Sponsorship

Criticism of Industry Sponsorship

Critics, such as Morris and Taitsman, would prefer that the medical profession eliminate commercial support for CME.

Despite ACCME requirements that program content be free of commercial interests, "CME providers can easily pitch topics designed to attract commercial sponsorship," and sponsors can award grants to programs that support their marketing strategies. The Institute of Medicine has said that CME has become too reliant on industry funding that "tends to promote a narrow focus on the products and to neglect provisions of a broader education on alternative strategies," such as communication and prevention.

For example, gabapentin (Neurontin), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for adjunctive therapy in epilepsy, but Warner-Lambert sponsored CME activities that encouraged its use for off-label indications. The U.S. Department of Justice brought civil and criminal charges against Warner-Lambert, which Warner-Lambert settled for $430 million, alleging that Warner-Lambert paid kickbacks to doctors in the form of lavish trips to attend presentations about off-label uses. More recently, AstraZeneca PLC has been fined $520 million in the United States for off-label promotion to doctors for their anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel.

Industry-sponsored CMEs can violate federal statutes, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "When a pharmaceutical manufacturer rewards high-prescribing physicians by directing a CME provider to pay (or overpay) them as CME faculty, consultants, or members of a speaker's bureau," wrote Morris and Taitsman.