CME Spotlight: Making European CME work
pharmafile | November 4, 2010 | Feature | Medical Communications | CME, CME Spotlight, Continuing medical education, Eugene Pozniak
Since spring I have been dealing with a team of builders who have missed every deadline possible, to the extent that instead of moving into a fully decorated and carpeted home last month, we were putting off the removal company so that plastering could be finished. We have now moved in, but are still living out of storage boxes as contents need to be shifted between rooms in order for jobs to be finished.
Explanations and excuses have abounded, reminding me of the story about Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody when it came to an important job that needed doing. Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn’t do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
Occasionally I feel that this is the route pharma-supported CME in Europe is at risk of treading: everybody looking to pharma, as the ‘somebody’, to account for the substantial future growth of CME in Europe. A new benchmarking report from a US organisation draws comparisons between CME in the US and Europe, seems to support this.
While pharma continues to prop up the huge CME machine in the US, the situation in Europe is quite the opposite, which means that trying to evaluate the CME environment in Europe by interviewing largely non-existent CME departments in pharma companies, becomes a redundant exercise.
European and US CME are different
In the US report mentioned, once more we see a woolly definition of ‘medical education’; confusing CME with promotional activities in Europe, as an attempt is made to examine European CME robustly. I was not prepared to pay the $6,995 to examine the full findings in the 65 pages, so maybe I’m being a bit unfair, but I am put off when seeing quotes like: “Europeans do not have a clue about US regulations and try to force their US affiliates to do things which are illegal,” with the implication that the corollary is not true.
It is very difficult to compare US and European CME. In the US everyone knows how CME is defined, funded, developed and presented. There is a compendium of CME nomenclature that is widely used and understood, there are regulated organisations that do it, formally accountable departments in drug companies funding it according to common standards, and clear rules of engagement for the experts and learners who present and consume it. In Europe the development and presentation of CME activities, even within a single country, can vary widely in approach. However, this does not make CME any lower quality or less valuable in Europe. It is just different.
This extends to the way pharma supports CME in Europe. Where companies engage with CME in Europe it is not through an independent CME department, but usually via an individual or small group in a marketing function or within medical affairs, sometimes seen as mavericks and many feeling like lone voices in a sea of promotional banter.
There is no broad move to support CME as there is in the US. Embarking on supporting a CME programme usually involves having to justify plans to a sceptical senior management or impatient colleagues looking for favourable ROI calculations. European pharma still needs to work through the benefits of supporting CME and how to manage it internally in a compliant way. After all, pharma is being seen as the one sector that should be funding CME. As we have heard at various times on both sides of the Atlantic, neither doctors nor their employers should be expected to pay the estimated annual €2,000 per doctor for CME.
Medical societies are expecting pharma to pay more towards CME activities; the UK Royal Colleges are welcoming funding from pharma and EMA; NICE and others are also looking to pharma to support continuing education – as unbiased education if not formalised CME itself – to support new products and the education that doctors require to keep up to date. But a major problem remains that pharma is not given any guidance on how to engage with CME; EFPIA remains strangely silent on the topic and the bodies mentioned above give scant direction on how commercial organisations should operate in a strictly non-promotional environment – other than “don’t do it the wrong way”.
Germany – the exception in European CME
Of course there is the notable exception of Germany. The rules have been strengthened in recent years with government intervention which has helped to clarify the position of pharma’s strictly arms-length funding relationship with CME, which parallels their draconian zero-Euro limit on promotional gifts and service items.
Some companies fund European CME by unilaterally employing US practices, which makes sense, especially if they could potentially fall foul of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – where international behaviour of a company exposes the US head office to litigation.
Others gingerly step from one programme to the next, seeing what they can support and are baffled as the rules change each year or by speciality. Some choose not to fund any external CME at all, instead managing the complete process internally – far from ‘Good CME Practice’, but by no means disallowed in some countries. What is important is that pharma is supporting CME more and is looking for guidance. The European CME Forum meeting in Berlin this November, will examine this topic and interested parties from pharma will be able to meet privately to discuss how to support CME in Europe. Other stakeholder groups are also evaluating the role of the supporter. The Good CME Practice Group is developing quality standards in CME with a framework for transparency of how various groups can engage with CME, which will also help guide pharma as to the external expectations when it comes to issues associated with commercially supported CME.
CME bodies also recognise that numerous parties are involved in CME programme. EACCME recently changed their evaluation process to include a more thorough review of the role of the supporting pharma company – as well as the associated organisations involved in presenting the CME programme.
Coming together to work through the practicalities will make it clearer to Everybody, that not just Anybody can engage in CME in Europe, and that ultimately Nobody should be reliant on an elusive ‘Somebody’ to help make CME in Europe succeed.
Eugene Pozniak is managing director of Siyemi Learning and Programme Director of European CME Forum. Email: epozniak@siyemi.org
Information about the Good CME Practice Group can be found at www.gCMEp.eu
Related Content

AZ launches US digital tool ‘DoctorsNotes’ in US
AstraZeneca has launched a new online tool in the US called DoctorsNotes to help medical …

Lucid opens second office
UK medical education firm Lucid has opened a second office in Hammersmith, London. In addition to …

Doctors, medical education and pharma – the way ahead
InPharm CME event Roy Pounder, Andrew Powrie-Smith, Richard Marchant, Roy Lilley, Kieran Walsh and Chuka …






