<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: accme</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'accme'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22accme%22&t=%22accme%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:31:33 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>AMA Votes To Discourage Commercial CME</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4968914&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FaEr37LbJgo4%2F</link>
            <description>The ongoing controversy over industry sponsorship of continuing medical education took a new turn this week when delegates to the American Medical Association annual meeting voted to restrict support from entities or individuals that have financial interests in the subject matter.
In other words, the delegates decided there should be little or no commercial support and those who are tapped to teach the material should not have any financial relationship with a drug or device maker. Danny Carlat, a psychiatrist who was once an industry speaker but now derides industry-sponsored CME, calls this vote &amp;#8220;huge&amp;#8221; (see here).
However, an AMA spokeswoman says not so fast, or words to that effect. In a phone conversation, she says the language adopted by the delegates is open to interpreta...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4968914</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:23:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4968914</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ACCME's Dirty Little Commercial Funding &quot;Secret&quot;</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4813666&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F05%2Faccmes-dirty-little-commercial-funding.html</link>
            <description>Having nothing better to do on a Saturday morning, I posted results of my latest analysis of sources of Continuing Medical Education (CME) funding reported by ACCME (Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education) in its 2010 annual report (see &quot;Pharma Support for Accredited CME Continues to Decline&quot;). I was tardy in doing this yearly task -- the report was made public last July. Better late than never.The real reason why I posted my ACCME analysis over the weekend, however, is because I had in my hands a study of physician attitudes about commercial support of continuing medical education that was going to be published on Monday and the data was relevant to the post I made after the study was published (see &quot;Physicians Are Concerned About Pharma Support of CME, But Are Unwilling t...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4813666</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 17:55:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4813666</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Physicians Are Concerned About Pharma Support of CME, But Are Unwilling to Pay Their Own Way!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4803520&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F05%2Fphysicians-are-concerned-about-pharma.html</link>
            <description>Talk about having your cake and eating it too! Commercial funding of continuing medical education (CME) and the potential for bias appear to concern many physicians, yet only a TINY MINORITY (7%) are willing to pay registration fees to eliminate or offset commercial funding sources, according to a report in the May 9 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.Maybe physicians would like ObamaCME; ie, government subsidy of their education? No, not quite. But they are willing to give up certain things to reduce costs such as eliminating a printed syllabus. They are not, however, keen to give up the free coffee and snacks!The authors surveyed attendees at live CME courses delivered by the International AIDS Society–USA (IAS-USA), a nonprofit organization that ...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4803520</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 20:02:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4803520</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Blurring Sponsorship, Advertising Disclosures</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4794897&amp;cid=t_161125_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F05%2F06%2Fblurring-sponsorship-advertising-disclosures%2F</link>
            <description>Many companies sponsor things, and in the world of mental health and psychiatry, those companies tend to be pharmaceutical. Sponsorships help promote a company&amp;#8217;s brand (and, indirectly, the products they sell). Since I believe &amp;#8212; like most mental health professionals &amp;#8212; that most people benefit from a combination of both medications and psychotherapy in the treatment of serious mental disorders, I see the value of many pharmaceutical companies&amp;#8217; products.
However, as we putter along in this age of the Internet, I&amp;#8217;ve seen a disturbing trend toward blurring the line between editorial content and advertising.
And now I see, thanks to a blog entry this week by Dr. Danny Carlat, that this trend is being promulgated by one of the very organizations responsible for over...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4794897</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 14:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4794897</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ACCME Seeks to Hide Drug Company Disclosures in the Fine Print</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4789350&amp;cid=t_161125_109_f&amp;fid=38951&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fcarlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F05%2Faccme-seeks-to-hide-drug-company.html</link>
            <description>(Source: The Carlat Psychiatry Blog)</description>
            <author>The Carlat Psychiatry Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4789350</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 17:09:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4789350</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>That's education!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4118811&amp;cid=t_161125_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fthats-education.html</link>
            <description>THAT’S EDUCATION!You can’t make this stuff up.This week I received a cheerful E-mail from a well known academic key opinion leader or KOL. Only the E-mail didn’t really come from Dr. Ian Cook at UCLA. It really came from a company called PeerView Institute for Medical Education. The E-mail offered on-line CME content with the topic Essential Aspects to Building a Therapeutic Alliance Between Patients and Practitioners for the Treatment of Mood Disorders. Whenever I see an anodyne title like that I know there’s trouble ahead.The content came in the form of a dialogue between Dr. Cook and another well known academic KOL, Dr. Michael Thase from Penn. Beneath two prominent corporate logos, a disclosure stated This activity is supported by educational grants from AstraZeneca LP and Lill...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4118811</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:29:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4118811</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kopelow On CME: ‘We Trust There Won’t Be Fraud’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3710794&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FKwcRo-0Wqew%2F</link>
            <description>Continuing medical education is always controversial, given concerns over undue industry influence on medical practice. But CME roared back into public view earlier this month when several leading policy makers and physicians – including the National Institutes of Health director – publicly objected to a rule promulgated by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, which would prevent doctors from receiving needed credit for attending medical meetings where industry people talk about their drugs. The issue came up when the American Heart Association planned a “vigorous” appeal, although the two groups last week resolved their differences (see this). We spoke with Murray Kopelow, who heads the ACCME, about the latest flap and the CME controversy. This is an excerpt...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3710794</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:23:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3710794</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The AHA And ACCME Declare A Truce Over CME</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3695808&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FFoSny4-5AJQ%2F</link>
            <description>The debate over industry funding of continuing medical education took a tense turn earlier this month when the American Heart Association promised to aggressively appeal a rule that would prevent doctors from receiving needed credit for attending medical meetings where industry people talk about their drugs (see background).
Specifically, AHA president Clyde Yancy was incensed that the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education told him his organization shouldn&amp;#8217;t have industry speakers at any scientific sessions at its upcoming annual meeting. The ACCME policy was set in 2004 and updated last year, but his vow to appeal undescored opposing views over industry influence on post-graduate medical education and whether it has gotten out of hand. The issue, in fact, will be de...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3695808</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:11:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3695808</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Are Docs Being Banished from Pharma's Garden of Eden?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3672030&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F06%2Fare-docs-being-banished-from-pharmas.html</link>
            <description>&quot;It is a breathtaking sweep to squash something that is really important to us, the science going on in the private sector,&quot; said Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, at a meeting in Bethesda, Md. At issue is a decision by the American Heart Association (AHA) to ban pharmaceutical industry employees from making medical education presentations later this year at the AHA's annual scientific sessions (see &quot;Drug firms banished from medical talks&quot;).&quot;The policy is blood-curdling,&quot; said Keith Yamamoto, executive vice dean of the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. &quot;This is conflict-of-interest considerations run amok.&quot;Wow! It's as if physicians were banished from an Eden where they enjoyed the fruits of the tree of knowledge made accessible by th...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3672030</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:05:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3672030</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NIH Panel, Ethics Code &amp; Blood Curdling Restraints</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3666222&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FCsHzfWRr9U4%2F</link>
            <description>Amid the controversy over financial conflicts of interest and academic researchers, the Advisory Committee to the National Institutes of Health director late last week included a lengthy discussion of the issue. NIH director Frances Collins, in fact, confirmed the agency may change a rule allowing academics to receive NIH grants after switching university jobs, even though sanctions were imposed on a previous university employer because of undisclosed financial conflicts. 
What followed, however, was equally interesting. Keith Yamamoto, executive vice dean of the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, pointed out that the American Heart Association is being prevented from allowing pharmaceutical industry employees make any presentations duing the scientific sessions of...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3666222</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:19:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3666222</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>House Bill Wants Pharma To Disclose CME Funding</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2989404&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fzswmw_VDGYI%2F</link>
            <description>The health care reform bill passed by the House would force drugmakers to disclose how much they spend on continuing medical education classes for docs, although the Senate version doesn&amp;#8217;t include such a requirement, according to The Wall Street Journal. The paper notes this comes as for-profit CME firms experience falling revenue. 
The Senate&amp;#8217;s Special Committee on Aging, meanwhile, is investigating industry-funded CME, the Journal continues, and John Kamp, who heads the Coalition for Healthcare Communication, wrote Kohl the committee &amp;#8220;should consider elimination of certified CME reporting in all versions of health-care reform bills because they are unneeded, redundant and needlessly expensive.&amp;#8221; The group is sponsored by the American Association of Advertising Agen...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2989404</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:43:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2989404</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nemeroff, Seroquel, and ACCME</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2882995&amp;cid=t_161125_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F10%2Fnemeroff-seroquel-and-accme.html</link>
            <description>Roy Poses has discussed the atypical antipsychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine) several times on this site, pointing out manipulation of clinical research results to enhance the appearance of efficacy, and suppression of studies with unfavorable results. I call this augmenting the marketed profile of the drug. Daniel Carlat has commented on published Seroquel data here and ClinPsych here.AstraZeneca, the marketer of Seroquel, has also been busy with continuing medical education (CME) programs that augment Seroquel’s profile. Last December 8, one such program went on line, aired by the provider CME Outfitters. The program’s title was “Atypical Antipsychotics in Major Depressive Disorder: When Current Treatments Are Not Enough.” The corporate logo for CME Outfitters is Education with I...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2882995</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:32:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2882995</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A MECC that BLISSfully keeps Promotion in Medical Education</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2786004&amp;cid=t_161125_109_f&amp;fid=38951&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fcarlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F08%2Fmecc-that-blissfully-keeps-promotion-in.html</link>
            <description>Recently, medical writers from across the country have been forwarding me blatant examples of how medical education companies are currupting the basic tenets of continuing medical education. Although I've become jaded, this particular company astonished even me with their willingness to do away with the pretense that industry-funded medical education is anything other than advertising.The company is called Brand(x) and they are based in the United Kingdom. They are mainly an advertising firm but they have a robust medical education department. Here is a screen shot from their website in which they explain their conception of &quot;medical education.&quot;If you can't quite make out the small print, you can reach this page by going to the home page, clicking &quot;enter&quot; then &quot;services&quot; then &quot;med ed.&quot; Her...</description>
            <author>The Carlat Psychiatry Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2786004</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:41:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2786004</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nissen Puts Stake Through ACCME's Heart at Senate Hearing on Industry-Funded CME</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2653996&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fnissen-puts-stake-through-accmes-heart.html</link>
            <description>At yesterday's United States Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing on &quot;Medical Research and Education: Higher Learning or Higher Earning?&quot;, most of the testimony focused on pharma industry support of continuing medical education (CME).Senators Kohl, Martinez, and Franken heard from speakers who were pro and con regarding the benefits of industry-sponsored support of CME, which is waning (see &quot;Pharma Shifts Support of CME from MECCs to Physician Societies&quot;).Testimony form Steven Nissen, MD, Chairman, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, was especially critical of industry-funded CME in general and of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) -- the organization that accredits CME providers -- in particular.&quot;With the billions of dollars of ind...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2653996</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:16:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2653996</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New ACCME Report: Commercial CME Support Enters Free Fall</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2786018&amp;cid=t_161125_109_f&amp;fid=38951&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fcarlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fnew-accme-report-commercial-cme-support.html</link>
            <description>Once a year, the ACCME (Accreditation Council of Continuing Medical Education) releases its Annual Report detailing the state of the health of the CME enterprise. It reports various things, like how many CME courses have been offered, how many physicians have taken part, etc.... But the meat of the report is always on page 8, Table 7: &quot;Income and Expense by Organization Type&quot;.This year, the big news (though not that newsy to those who have been following the issue) is that for the first time since financial records were reported in 1998, the size of the CME industry has contracted. In 1998, the total income for all CME activities was $888 million, and over the years, it steadily increased to a high of $2,539 million in 2007. Well, last year, the total dipped to $2,365 million, a &quot;loss&quot; of ...</description>
            <author>The Carlat Psychiatry Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2786018</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:55:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2786018</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pro-Industry Supporters Gather in Washington, DC in Attempt to Put Out &quot;Five Alarm&quot; Industry-Sponsored CME Fire</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1815315&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F09%2Fpro-industry-supporters-gather-in.html</link>
            <description>I awoke today at 4 AM to catch an Amtrak train to Washington, DC so that I could attend a meeting hosted by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) on industry support of continuing medical education (CME). The organizers of this meeting were Peter Pitts and Robert Goldberg, both of whom contribute to the DrugWonks blog.Since I am currently hosting a survey entitled “Is Pharma Sponsored CME Biased?” -- which you can respond to here -- I felt that I needed to attend this meeting to get a “balanced” and unbiased view of the issue.Actually, none of the presenters claimed to be unbiased. In fact, a point often made by the panelists -- many of whom are physicians -- is that it is impossible to totally eliminate bias in CME. It is just as likely, the panelists claimed, that...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1815315</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:05:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1815315</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is it time to end pharma sponsored CME?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1768899&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F09%2Fis-it-time-to-end-pharma-sponsored-cme.html</link>
            <description>In 2006, the pharmaceutical industry provided $1.19 billion to sponsor physician continuing medical education (CME) programs in the US ($1.44 billion if you include advertising and exhibits at CME events). See &quot;Online CME Pharma Growth is Bad News for Marketers&quot; for the data.In the article &quot;Wither CME?&quot;, which I wrote almost one year ago, I asked these questions:Why can’t physicians pay for their CME like many other professionals do?Why should pharma contribute so much for CME? Doesn't that naturally lead to biased content? Shouldn't there be a ban on commercially-funded accredited CME? Turns out that that last option has received a lot of serious consideration from medical associations, medical schools, and, of course, Congress. The latter spooked ACCME (Accreditation Council for Contin...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1768899</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:27:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1768899</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>US Senate and continuing medical education - interesting article on CME shared on LMS Group Blog</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1567389&amp;cid=t_161125_44_f&amp;fid=37287&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lms-blog.com%2Fpost%2F2008%2F02%2F26%2FUS-Senate-and-continuing-medical-education-interesting-article-on-CME-brought-out-on-LMS-Group-blog</link>
            <description>Discussion
Discussion of off-label or unapproved uses has historically been an
important part of CME, particularly in areas such as pediatrics and oncology,
where drugs are often prescribed off label. Harry A. Gallis, MD, president,
Alliance for CME, says, “It would severely hamper the educational process if
faculty were not able to discuss these drugs or therapeutic indications in some
venue.” As for how providers should respond to the scrutiny, Gallis says they
should continue doing what they always do to assure content validity, but he
acknowledges how difficult it is for CME providers to monitor “every word that
comes out of everyone's mouth,” especially at specialty society meetings that
attract thousands of attendees and speakers. “We just have to do the best job
we can and...</description>
            <author>LMS Group Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1567389</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:34:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1567389</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is It Time to End Industry Sponsored CME?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1098805&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F12%2Fis-it-time-to-end-industry-sponsored.html</link>
            <description>Last year, the pharmaceutical industry provided $1.19 billion to sponsor physician continuing medical education (CME) programs in the US ($1.44 billion if you include advertising and exhibits at CME events). See &quot;Online CME Growth is Bad News for Pharma Marketers&quot; for the data. In the essay &quot;Wither CME?&quot;, John Mack (editor of Pharma Marketing News) asked these questions: Why should pharma contribute so much for CME? Doesn’t that naturally lead to biased content? Shouldn’t there be a ban on commercially-funded accredited CME? Why can’t physicians pay for their CME like many other professionals do? This survey attempts to get some answers to these questions from the Pharma Marketing Network community. Please take 2 minutes to answer this ONLINE SURVEY relating to industry sponsorship o...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1098805</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:07:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1098805</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Online CME Growth is Bad News for Pharma Marketers</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1003557&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F11%2Fonline-cme-growth-is-bad-news-for.html</link>
            <description>It's very instructive to peruse ACCME's annual report data if you want to understand the trends in pharma support of physician continuing medical education (CME). ACCME stands for Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. It's an organization that allows other organizations to provide &quot;accredited&quot; CME credits through educational programs. Doctors need a certain amount of CME credits to maintain their licenses.The ACCME data includes information about the number of physician participants in CME programs, the CME hours delivered (1 credit usually means one hour of educational activity as estimated by the CME provider), etc. And it breaks this information down according to the type of CME provider (medical school, for-profit company, medical society, etc.).I recently perused the...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1003557</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:44:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1003557</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PhRMA Intern Proves &quot;No Strings Attached&quot; to Pharma-Sponsored CME!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=696881&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F06%2Fphrma-intern-proves-no-strings-attached.html</link>
            <description>Yes! It's PhRMA Intern!In the last episode of PhRMA Intern, the intrepid Washington, DC visitor from an Ivy League school, disguised as mild-manner Emily Jameson, summer intern at Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, helped the industry get a sneak preview of the movie SiCKO (see &quot;PhRMA Intern Makes Movie Mogul an Offer He Can't Refuse!&quot;).In that episode, PhRMA Intern exhibited her dark side and fans wondered if she would continue to employ those powers over all others in her never ending battle for believability, justice for pharmaceutical companies, and the PhRMA way. Or would she develop new and more subtle means of persuasion?The answer may be found in this episode:PhRMA Intern and the No-Strings-Attached CME Proof!Emily, as she has been instructed to do by her boss Ke...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=696881</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">696881</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Free CME Without Direct Pharma Support: Is It Possible?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=675612&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F06%2Ffree-cme-without-direct-pharma-support.html</link>
            <description>Yesterday, in a post about about pharmaceutical company support of continuing medical education (see &quot;Welcome to the CME Laundromat&quot;), I made a suggestion that, like the rest of us mortals, physicians should pay for their own professional education credits.This straightforward &quot;solution&quot; to the problem of pharma influence over CME received some attention from other bloggers and their physician audience.Medical Weblog (Kevin, MD), for example, suggested that &quot;Realistically, if physicians had to pay to attend their own CME lectures, no one would go.&quot;This elicited several comments with different points of view, including the following:&quot;Realistically, if physicians had to pay to attend their own CME lectures, no one would go.&quot;Speaks for itself, doesn't it?Wow . . . just wow . . . what a sterli...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=675612</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:41:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">675612</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Welcome to the CME Laundromat!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=675613&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F06%2Fwelcome-to-cme-laundromat.html</link>
            <description>In a New York Times Op-Ed piece, Daniel Carlat, a professor at Tufts Medical School and editor in chief of The Carlat Psychiatry Report, characterizes pharma-sponsored Continuing Medical education (CME) as &quot;a new twist on that well-known instrument of corruption, money laundering.&quot;&quot;[CME] content,&quot; says Carlat, &quot;is rarely developed by the identified experts. Instead, it is developed by the undisclosed communication company, which is paid by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company.&quot; (see &quot;Diagnosis: Conflict of Interest&quot;)Them's fighting words says Robert Goldberg in a post to Drug Wonks:&quot;Daniel Carlat has a near hysterical piece about that equates pharmaceutical and biotech funding of CME to money laundering. Which I guess makes all the academics, researchers and clinicians who particpate...cr...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=675613</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:52:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">675613</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Dollars for Docs: More Scrutiny Needed</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=602481&amp;cid=t_161125_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F05%2Fdollars-for-docs-more-scrutiny-needed.html</link>
            <description>My fellow blogger Peter Rost over at Question Authority continues to milk an Astrazeneca internal newsletter for stories. First it was the Zubillaga Affair, then the Missy Moran's MUMS Miasma, followed by The Pink Cupcake Caper. Now it's the Doctor Freedland Fee Fest! (Sorry, doc, your name will forever be linked to this issue in Google searches.)&quot;Medical Bags of Money&quot;The Astrazeneca newsletter reports that Dr. Stephen Freedland -- faculty member of the Duke University School of Medicine -- was number one among the &quot;Top 3&quot; Casodex (a prostate cancer drug) speakers in 2006, speaking 68 times on behalf of Astrazeneca. Number 2 spoke only 21 time! Freedland is set to best that record in 2007, having &quot;moderated 21 programs&quot; at the time of publication of the newsletter.Rost calculates that at ...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=602481</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 11:07:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">602481</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

