We previously published a story about the changes coming the EACCME Accreditation Criteria and platform, including restricting satellite symposium, communication companies, and event sponsorship. Now, the CME Coalition, a Washington, DC-based organization comprised of CE/CME providers, beneficiaries of CE/CME, and supporters of CE/CME, has submitted comments to Dr. João Grenho, Secretary General of the European Union of Medical Specialists, in response to the changes.
The CME Coalition notes that they “applaud EACCME’s efforts to update their guidelines and appreciate the work that has gone into this release.” However, the letter aims to “weigh in and seek clarification on several concerns” raised by members of the Coalition.
Recommendations
The first concern raised by the CME Coalition is that the EACCME will “no longer consider for accreditation commercial/industry sponsored satellite symposium, even if it is stated that they are supported by an unrestricted educational sponsorship.” The letter goes on to note that by definition, accredited CME “guarantees” that the education provided in the program is “objective, fair-balanced, free of commercial bias and meets rigorous high standards of quality and independence.” The letter goes on to note that symposia are often supported by “unrestricted educational sponsorships” and that they still must abide by the “the strict criteria outlined in the UEMS-EACCME’s Requirements for the Accreditation of a CME/CPD Activity.” That criteria ensures that “that there is no opportunity for industry to influence the content, infuse marketing or promotional messages, or dictate/recommend how the grant should be managed, thus ensuring there is a clear separation between the industry supporter and the content of the CME activity.”
The CME Coalition raises concerns that with this restriction, it may result in negative implications for the availability of, and access to, quality and fair/balanced education at global conferences outside of the United States, as attended by healthcare professionals around the world.
The second concern raised is that the phrasing of the sponsorships outside of the exhibit hall requirements be altered to include “appropriate guidance to allow for sponsorships outside the Exhibit Hall.” The letter also supports allowing for industry sponsorship of items that would primarily be utilized by the healthcare professionals during the course of the CME event where there would be an imperceptible influence or bias toward the industry product, such as sponsoring of specific facilities (i.e., hand sanitizer stations, charging stations, etc.) and sponsoring of Congress Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi access/username/password.
The third concern centers around the eligibility criteria that require professional congress organizers and medical communications agencies to co-develop CME/CPD activities with a physician organization. The CME Coalition believes this policy may be “potentially discriminatory” towards private firms who employ thousands of workers in the European Union to help organize accredited educational activities and it may be considered as going against “the spirit of European Union treaties,” such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 16.
Finally, the CME Coalition notes confusion in understanding “the true distinction that EACCME® is drawing between the traditional concept of an unrestricted educational sponsorship and its application within the updated framework.” There are three definitions that the CME Coalition believes may be confusing and/or conflicting in the changes, including Conflict of Interest, Perceived Conflict of Interest, and Actual Conflict of Interest.