A review of respondents to the ACCME Calls for Comment found that most disagreed with the proposed changes.
The Coalition for Healthcare Communications released a report today summarizing the results of the ACCME’s Calls for Comment.
What they found was that by large the respondents to the ACCME call to comment did not want to see the dramatic changes that the ACCME proposed.
Issue # 1: The ACCME will ensure the current processes of attaining commercial support will not undermine the independence of continuing medical education.
Proposal (i.) Related to a prohibition of communications related to preferred content areas from commercial interests to accredited providers, such as RFP's:
- 79% disagreed with ACCME, 21 % agreed
Proposal (ii.) Related to communications from commercial interests pertaining to "internal criteria" for the provision of commercial support:
- 67% disagreed with ACCME, 33% agreed
Issue # 2: The ACCME believes that due consideration be given to the elimination of commercial support of continuing medical education activities.
- 93 % disagreed with ACCME, 5 % agreed with ACCME, and 1% were neutral
Issue # 3: Persons paid to create, or present, promotional materials on behalf of commercial interests cannot control the content of accredited continuing medical education on that same content.
- 76 % disagreed with ACCME, 12 % agreed, and 11 % were neutral
In their communications the Coalition applauded the ACCME for making these comments public.
The above statistics and those in the attached summary should not be considered a scientific survey. Instead, they reflect a serious attempt to classify the contents of the comments and summarize them for analysis. The analysis is not a conclusive scientific survey, there would appear to be significant majorities for each of the three Call for Comments areas.
Further, as noted in the Coalition comments, the Coalition agrees with the position of Dr. Murray Kopelow that comments should not be considered a vote by the various stakeholder communities. We do believe, however, they reflect the serious efforts of persons with vast experience in the community and others with knowledge the ethical, public policy and oversight issues examined here. In addition, many of the comments suggested significant refinements or alternative recommendations that require serious consideration.
According to John Kamp Executive Director of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication "The Board of ACCME cannot ignore that the vast majority of comments disagreed with the proposals, even though they agreed with the goals of the Calls for Comment. If ACCME wants to go forward with any of this, it will need to publish a further notice clarifying its purpose and proposals."
It is clear from the respondents that the ACCME should consider the input and time organizations spent on this call for comment very carefully prior to changing their accreditation policies.
The Coalition Education Committee urges all stakeholders to review the entire record as well as the summary attached:
Coalition for HealthCare Communication: Summary of ACCME Call for Comment