Healthy Skepticism Library item: 13111

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Silverman E.
Pharma Free: Oregon Docs Ban CME Funding
Pharmalot 2008 Mar 13
http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/03/pharma-free-oregon-docs-ban-cme-funding/

Full text:

Two months ago, the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians became only the
second state chapter in the national Academy of Family Physicians to
adopt a policy of eschewing financial support from pharma. As a result,
the 1,300-member group no longer accepts any grants – restricted or
unrestricted – for its continuing ed seminars or allows drugmakers to
take booths in its exhibit hall during conferences. And there are no
pharma ads in its publication. Of course, this may prove to be a
financial risk. Who wants their dues to rise, after all? So we asked
executive director Kelly Gonzales to tell us how the move has, so far,
been received.

Pharmalot: Why did your organization take this step?
Gonzales: It was a little bit of wanting the academy to walk our own
talk. We’d like our members to make decisions on medications based on
facts and evidence, not on marketing. So it just seemed like we couldn’t
have a straight face if we were giving that message to our memberes
while, at the same time, we’re taking unrestricted grants. Also, the
national organization relies on pharmaceutical support, but a lot of
state academies would like to know how much support they get. There are
resolutions introduced every year questioning the amount and we’re among
the states pushing them on that. So we felt we needed a clean house
ourselves. Now, we feel we’re in a better position to confront them.

Pharmalot: Why not reject unrestricted grants instead of all grants?
Gonzales: The affiliation still connotes we’re working with the
pharmaceutical industry. If we’re putting on a course that includes a
seminar on, say, immunization, and we apply for an unrestricted grant
and send out 10 applications, we’re likely to get responses from
companies with some interest in immunization. They may not have applied
to support the program the year before and may not apply next year. But
the implication is that they wanted to support this program, because
they have a vested interest.

Pharmalot: Is your group taking a big hit by rejecting financial support?
Gonzales: We’re going to find out. We’re still putting on CME seminars,
of course, but as I mentioned, not taking any unrestricted grants, so
we’re looking for other financial support. But being pharma-free has
actually proven to be a good selling point. We’re attracting interest
from some health plans and hospital systems, people we’ve not
traditionally approached in the past. It’s more work to get those
sources, but there are also electronic medical records companies and
insurance companies. So it’s possible.

Pharmalot: So how is it being received so far?
Gonzales: We have our annual conference this coming May (look here for
the brochure boasting a pharma-free environment) and I think we’ll do
alright. We have just three big continued ed conferences each year. And
in the past, maybe a fifth of our exhibitors were pharmaceutical
companies. So I don’t think it will have a detrimental affect.

And it’s turning out to be really popular with our members. We haven’t
had a huge meeting where a lot of people have shown up yet, so we’ll get
a broader view (in May). I have heard our members won’t be unhappy that
we won’t have pharmaceutical companies in our exhibit hall this year.
But for instance, the med school here puts on week-long course on family
medicine and invited us on the first day to address the group about what
we’re doing. And when our speaker mentioned that we were now pharma
free, the audience broke into spontaneous applause. That was a good
indicator.