Maintain a healthy separation while funding medical education

by Sanjay Koshatwar
Executive Vice President, Pharma & Life Sciences at Incedo Inc.

Medical schools have a long history of organising and providing Continuing Medical Education (CME), which helps professionals in the medical field stay updated new and developing areas in their domain. Collaboration between physicians and industry is necessary for residents and trainees as they learn about the working of pharmaceutical companies, which they are hardly exposed to in their training.


Today, CME is a multi-billion-dollar industry. It helps medical professionals maintain competence and stay informed about the latest developments in medical science. In the United States, most physicians are required to participate in CME activities to maintain their medical license, hospital privileges, and specialty board certifications. Moreover, having good quality of CME is beneficial for the patients at large. It results in rapid advances in medical science by increasing pressure on physicians stay cognizant of their field.


Declining commercial funding

Over the recent years, medical schools and teaching hospitals have become increasingly dependent on industry support to sponsor CME activities. Commercial funding from pharmaceutical and medical device companies is an important source of CME funds. Commercial participation also ensures that physicians will be well versed with the latest advancement and can serve their patients better. Besides, the public perception of pharmaceutical companies is like that of a tobacco company, which keeps pharmaceutical executives awake at night. Giving CME funding improves this image and in addition, increases exposure to healthcare and physicians.


However, there has been a decline in this trend of commercial funding in CME lately. Regulations have been imposed on commercial funding of CME activities because they can be easily used to change prescription patterns and stimulate sales. Though some of these measures have been taken with good intentions, the recent regulatory changes make it hard for companies to fund CME even if there is no alternate motive. Some industry professionals feel that prescription patterns tend to get biased when pharmaceutical companies sponsor medical education activities. Due to mounting pressure on the industry and increasing regulations, there has been a downward trend in commercial funding of medical education.


This declining trend is a bad sign for pharmaceutical companies, medical education companies, and in the long run, for patients. Saying no to commercial funding is the wrong solution. Instead such bias can be managed by putting correct checks and balances on the grant management process by pharmaceutical companies and the medical community.


The grey area between funding and regulations

Despite these changes, there is still a huge grey area in interpreting the guidelines. As the regulations become stricter, companies have come up with innovative solutions by adhering to the guidelines to continue education funding. Enterprises have taken steps to re-organize, develop new policies, train sales staff, and implement auditing procedures. For instance, sales and marketing teams were earlier responsible for identifying CME needs and developing materials. After recent cases of scrutiny and firewall policies, enterprises have moved the activity to medical affairs and compliance departments. Most companies have set up new grants divisions that report to the medical affairs team, separating the commercial activities from the medical education activity. Enterprises can also take other steps like utilising reporting, investigating, monitoring training and using a third part to manage and process grants.


CME grants and pharmaceutical industry grant administrators can begin by identifying and understanding the areas for improvement in the grant management platforms used by pharmaceutical companies. Enterprises must work at having a streamlined and compliant grant management system. This way, both pharmaceutical companies and the medical communities can benefit mutually from the relationship.


Here are some factors to consider before you design a grant management process:

* - Flexibility
Be aware of your ecosystem and grow with the needs of the industry over time. This increases your grant process’ ability to integrate with other system platforms. Ensure that the organisation can adapt its work method in response to changing conditions and effectively deal with ambiguity, and give a quick turn around on report requests, system mods etc.

* - Cost
Consider your initial, one-time cost, as well as ongoing costs. It is easier to get a balanced view of costs over the first three years. This will give you an idea whether a subscription-based solution works better for you than an in-house solution with a high capital expense.

* - Functionality
Most of the available systems are likely to offer the core functionality required to satisfy most users. The key is to identify providers that are the most responsive to special requests and unique needs of your enterprise.

* - Support
Support is a differentiator every enterprise must lookout for. After evaluating options, choose a system which offer the level of support you need in terms of customisation, your plans for new programs, training and documentation (policies, business processes, SOPs etc.).


Instead of keeping away from commercial grants, a disciplined and cooperative relationship between medical centres and pharmaceutical industry can help to reap the benefits of biomedical research and ensure constant advancement in diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diseases. The medical community and industry should work together and take steps to become more compliant to the increasing regulations.