The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) has posted the responses to its calls-for-comment on several issues discussed at the March 2009 Board of Directors meeting. These responses will be discussed by the Board of Directors at its July 16-17, 2009 meeting.
Commercial Support-Free Accredited CME: A proposed policy to create a new designation and review process for accredited CME providers that wish to identify their program as one that does not accept funding from commercial interests. Read the responses.
Promotional Teacher and Author-Free Accredited CME: A proposed policy to create a new designation and review process for providers that wish to identify their program as one that does not involve teachers/authors who have participated in promotional and marketing activities for commercial interests. Read the responses.
Independent CME Funding Entity: A proposal to create a granting entity, independent of the ACCME that would accept unrestricted donations for accredited CME activities. Read the responses.
ACCME Rulemaking: A notice and comment procedure within the rulemaking process at ACCME that was adopted by the Board of Directors in March 2009. Read the responses.
After pursuing through the responses it is clear that a vast majority of the respondents do not agree with the proposed changes.
One accredited provider in response to the proposal for promotional and author free designation made this comment that I thought was hilarious and very gutsy – you have to give your name and organization with the responses (I knew nothing about this one before today):
“Are you kidding? Please take the folks who come up with these bizarre ideas outside and put them out of their misery. I think the persons needing a designation are the ones coming up with designations for programs and speakers based on whether the program has indirect funding from the pharmaceutical industry or the speakers have ever participated in funded research or been paid to provide educational programs.
Certainly the best speakers at the national meetings I go to have all given talks sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, and often they have done research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
It is not clear besides discussing at their board meeting what the next steps are when the ACCME receives input on these calls for comment but I encourage you to read through them.