CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION
To resolve the issues with relying on volunteer participant reporting, the
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended that it
and other interest groups collaborate with the ACCME to create a process
through which CME offerings would be externally evaluated for
compliance with applicable guidelines. 115 However, until such voluntary
processes are widely implemented, the ACCME’s ability to minimize
commercial bias is limited. For these reasons, in its 2007 investigation of
industry influence on CME activities, the Senate Finance Committee found
that ACCME standards were inadequate. 116 The Senate committee cited the
ways in which the standards enable CME providers to accommodate
suggestions and input from drug companies while claiming independence
because the drug companies are not requiring them to do anything. 117
G. State Approaches to CME Regulation
States have their own standards for interactions between CME providers
and industry sponsors, which can be stricter than the ACCME standards. 118
The Massachusetts Pharmaceutical and Device Manufacturer Code of
Conduct, for example, provides that a pharmaceutical manufacturer “shall
not provide any advice or guidance to the CME provider regarding the
content or faculty for a particular CME program funded by the
company.” 119 The Massachusetts requirements, unlike the ACCME
Standards for Commercial Support, provide no leeway for CME providers
to solicit or accept advice or suggestions regarding topics, content, or
speakers. This model arguably would limit industry influence on CME
more effectively than the ACCME standards, assuming the code was
properly enforced. Still, this approach is limited to the individual state in
which it is implemented. 120
115. See generally ASS’N OF AM. MED. COLLS., INDUSTRY FUNDING OF MEDICAL
EDUCATION: REPORT OF AN AAMC TASK FORCE (2008), available at https://members.aamc.
org/eweb/upload/Industry%20Funding%20of%20Medical%20Education.pdf.
116. See STAFF OF S. COMM. ON FINANCE, 110TH CONG., USE OF EDUCATIONAL GRANTS
BY PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS 16 (Comm. Print 2007)
117. Id.
118. See, e.g., Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturer Conduct, 105 MASS.
CODE REGS. 970.000-.011 (West, WestlawNext through Dec. 6, 2013, Register #1249).
119. Id. § 970.007( 3).
120. While payments to CME providers increased sixteen percent (over $1.2 million)
between 2010 and 2011 after the Massachusetts Pharmaceutical and Medical Device
Manufacturer Code of Conduct was amended, no data is currently available to determine the
effectiveness of this particular provision in terms of limiting commercial bias. See Thomas
Sullivan, Massachusetts Posts 2011 Payments to Healthcare Providers: 3% Drop in
Payments, POLICYMED (Mar. 6, 2013, 5: 41 AM), http://www.policymed.com/2013/03/
massachusetts-posts-2011-payments-to-healthcare-providers-3-drop-in-payments.html.
