The document summarizes key discussions from the Pharmaceutical Alliance for Continuing Medical Education (PACME) Second Annual Spring Summit regarding compliance with standards for commercial support of continuing medical education. Specifically, it describes how attendees discussed grey areas around appropriate levels of communication and funding requests between CME providers and industry funders. There was no consensus on some issues, but general agreement that greater clarity is needed to distinguish educational activities from promotional ones.

1. VOLUME 31, NO. 7
Almanac
A Monthly Member Benefit of the Alliance J U LY 2 0 0 9
PACME 2009 Report: accreditation body representatives then responded to the
audience feedback on a number of grey zone issues that might
put funders or CME providers at risk for compliance violations.
Grey Zones in Compliance Breakout buzz groups, in which small groups discussed and
then presented their conclusions regarding acceptable levels of
Issues in Pharma Med-Ed and communication between CME funders and CME providers,
formed a third component of this session. Dialogue with the
Marketing Departments reactor panel continued during this stage of the session as well.
Among the grey zone topics considered were:
Pesha Rubinstein, BA, CCMEP, Senior Director,
• Issues around promotional events at CME activities (eg, a
CME, Education Outcomes Science medical society planning an annual conference approaches
Nearly 100 attendees convened on May 7–8, 2009, for the an industry funder of CME marketing department for: general
Pharmaceutical Alliance for Continuing Medical Education support, product theaters, satellite symposia, meeting rooms
(PACME) Second Annual Spring Summit in Philadelphia. Of those specifically for health care provider [HCP]-industry funder
participating in the conference, approximately 50% were from representative interaction, or receptions/breaks)
the pharmaceutical/device/biotech environment (hereafter • Whether provider type (eg, academic medical center versus
referred to as industry funders), 25% were from medical MECC) mattered in regard to the level of risk posed to the
education communications companies (MECC), and the funder or to the activity
remainder were from other CME provider groups that included • Acceptable levels of communication from an industry funder
hospital/health care systems, medical specialty societies, and to CME providers, particularly in regard to requests for
state medical societies. proposals (RFPs)
The first session of day one of the conference was titled
Compliance Continuous Improvement Working Session, • Acceptable levels of communication from a CME provider to
facilitated by Mike Saxton, MEd, FACME, CCMEP, Senior an industry funder.
Director, Medical Education Group, Pfizer Inc, and Pamela L. Through their ARS responses, attendees clearly identified those
Mason, BS, CCMEP, FACME, Director, Medical Education Grants activities that were in violation of the Accreditation Council for
Office, AstraZeneca. The fact that this session opened the Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) Standards of
conference indicated its critical importance to the PACME Commercial SupportSM (SCS) and that posed the greatest
planning committee. Through audience response system (ARS) compliance risk to the funder. When issues were more in the
interactions, attendees provided feedback on general questions grey zone, participant ARS responses were distributed more
and case scenarios featuring communication between industry widely across a five-point scale. See Figure 1 to view responses
funders of CME and CME providers. A reactor panel of to perceived compliance risk if a medical society were to request
Inside Educational Opportunities
➤ REALITY CME: YOUR GUIDE TO WHICH WAY IS UP! [4] Alliance 35th Annual Conference
January 27–30, 2010
➤ SECOND ANNUAL PACME SPRING SUMMIT: MEETING
Establishing Continuing Medical Education as a Pathway to Better
ROUNDUP [4]
Patient Care
➤ CALENDAR OF EVENTS [8] Hilton® New Orleans Riverside
New Orleans, Louisiana
For New Alliance Programs and Products Visit the Alliance Website: www.acme-assn.org

2. For more information and
Call for Data submission guidelines,
visit www.cmexchange.org today!
support from a pharmaceutical company marketing department both departments. There was even a suggestion that the same
to support an area for HCP-industry engagement (when one-on- lawyers should consult both departments, so that employees in
one detailing rooms are set up outside an exhibit hall). both departments would understand the need for compliance
Two main points of view emerged from the exercises in and the repercussions of compliance violations.
compliance risk, one from the pharmaceutical/device/ PACME participants could conclude from the presentation that
biotechnology company’s medical education perspectives, the well-defined policies were in order for pharmaceutical/device/
other from a government regulator’s. Saxton defined the biotechnology marketing departments as well as for their medical
pharmaceutical/device/biotechnology medical education education departments. Guidance for any communication
community’s internal point of view when he summarized a buzz between CME industry funders and CME providers as well as
session, “We need to have criteria-based decision making.” between pharmaceutical/device/biotechnology marketing and
Specific criteria regarding acceptable levels of communication promotional funding recipients would need to be made with an
between funders and providers could help reduce compliance eye to how the press and government regulators could perceive
risk in the grant-awarding process. Peter H. Vlasses, PharmD, both types of grant awarding processes.
BCPS, FCCP, Executive Director, Accreditation Council for
Pharmacy Education (ACPE), expressed the external point of Participants and Panel Weigh In
view during a reactor panel response. He posed the question, The presentation format—ARS input, reactor panel
“Will it pass the Grassley test?” as the question industry funders commentary, buzz group breakout presentations with reactor
and CME providers needed to ask when deciding whether an panel dialogue—made for an interactive session of high interest.
activity was clearly identifiable as an educational or a The scenario of a medical society approaching a
promotional activity. [For reference, Vlasses was referring to the pharmaceutical company’s marketing department for general
ranking Republican of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator support of an annual conference garnered an ARS response of
Charles Grassley, who spearheaded an inquiry into drug 63% of the audience who perceived it as presenting no, low, or
company grants for medical education.] moderate risk. However, during the buzz group and reactor
A point of emphasis in this session was that pharmaceutical/ panel dialogue, attendees discovered that general support can
device/biotechnology company marketing departments must be put both the medical society and the industry funder at risk. The
as well-versed as medical education departments in how Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) April 2009
promotional material differs from CME. Scrutiny from government article, by Rothman et al,1 was invoked by a number of speakers
regulators or the press is done with an eye toward criticizing during this topic discussion. Kristin Rand, JD, Group Manager,
corporate, not departmental, integrity. With compliance risk Independent Medical Education, Genentech, in representing her
occurring in the areas of marketing and in accredited medical buzz group, commented that the general support idea is an issue
education, training in promotion versus CME needs to occur in of concern. She asked, “How would that be affected by the
proposed Sunshine Act?” and added that the passage of this act
could engender a process for identifying who got what money
Figure 1: Perceived Compliance Risk If a
from where and for what purpose. From a compliance point of
Marketing Department Were to Support
view she remarked that funding requests should not be general;
Detailing Outside an Exhibit Hall
rather they should indicate exactly what the funds are for, meet
Responses specific criteria, and be associated with a documentation
process. Moderator Saxton also put forth that academic medical
Percent Count Answer Options
centers that pool grant money awarded for research should
13% 8 None—can not imagine a circumstance consider devising criteria that specify what the money will be
when this would not be appropriate used for.
30% 19 Low—almost always consider this Reactor panelist Mindi McKenna, PhD, Director, Division of
appropriate CME, American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) remarked,
33% 21 Moderate—depends on circumstances “General support includes accredited education, product-specific
information, and patient education. It is incumbent upon all of us
8% 5 Medium—would likely not do this to use standardized language for clarity inside our own
16% 10 High—definitely would not do this community, for Congress, the public, and anywhere else.” With
respect to requests for both promotional opportunities and
100% 63 Totals
commercial support, another reactor panelist, Kate Regnier, MA,
2 • Visit the Alliance website at www.acme-assn.org Almanac • Alliance for CME • Volume 31, No. 7 • July 2009

3. MBA, Deputy CEO, ACCME, reminded the audience that are generally known among all CME stakeholders, including
Standards were already established to deal with this issue. industry funders and CME providers, it was interesting to note
Regnier referred participants to the fourth standard of the how specific scenarios challenged attendees’ SCS understanding
ACCME SCS and said, “This Standard requires accredited and interpretation. The ends of the spectrum—what is clearly
providers to keep requests for commercial support separate from acceptable and what is clearly unacceptable—are much clearer
requests for promotional opportunities. Combining such requests than the middle. No one CME provider type was identified by
or providing promotional opportunities in exchange for PACME attendees as being more SCS-savvy than another, and a
commercial support is prohibited by the ACCME Standards of number of the case scenarios involved SCS violations by medical
Commercial Support.” societies and academic medical centers.
Another hot topic of discussion involved how an industry What clearly emerged from this session was that there needs
funder’s medical education department may communicate with to be more clarity among all CME stakeholders as to what
the CME provider community, and comments focused particularly constitutes CME and what constitutes promotional efforts. The
on the RFP. All attendees voted that an RFP that prescribed AAFP’s McKenna succinctly summed up the Thursday morning
content regarding a specific drug’s mechanism of action or an exercise by pointing out, “We all [need to] tackle the potential
update on a specific drug’s use was high risk, and should not be confusion between education and promotion . . . clarify who in
issued or considered. Perceived risk plummeted when the each other’s [organizations] to approach for what, and . . .
scenarios involved an industry funder interested in supporting respect the synergies but distinctions between our roles as
independent medical education (IME) that concerned: commercial supporters, CME providers, and health care
1. A current update on treatment options for diabetes providers. We have a responsibility to clarify this . . . [ultimately]
to contribute to the timely translation of research into practice to
2. The clinical (disease) area
serve patient needs.”
3. A practice gap of patient nonadherence to treatment plan as
Reference
measured by the HbA1c blood test.
1. Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD, et al. Professional medical
RFP posting inspired a number of comments ranging from associations and their relationships with industry: a proposal for controlling
select a few providers to disseminate as widely as possible. conflict of interest. JAMA. 2009;301(13):1367–1372.
One industry funder medical education representative
contributed that his group received direction from its legal
department that advised as broad a dissemination of the RFP as Points for Practice
possible as the company’s strategy for minimizing compliance
risk. RFPs for this funder are distributed to the ACCME’s list of • All CME stakeholders should periodically review the
accredited providers. A medical education representative from ACCME SCS and ensure that their policies and
another industry supporter made the argument to send an RFP to practices are in compliance with these requirements.
a selected few CME providers, since broadly disseminated RFPs
use up CME provider resources in writing up grant requests. • CME providers should avoid requesting general
Jann Balmer, PhD, Director of CME, University of Virginia School support from industry funders and instead should
of Medicine, and Alliance President, countered that this clearly define CME funding requests from promotional
approach might suggest that the funder is compromising the funding requests.
CME activity’s independence. “If you are picking the same
providers over and over again it creates a pattern in terms of • Academic medical centers that pool funding for
disseminating the information. I’d prefer that you open up the research should be scrupulous in ensuring that these
RFP process and then take them on a first come, first served monies be used as intended and should be able to
basis,” she said. provide documentation as evidence.
• Industry funders can minimize compliance risk by
Summary
developing decision-making criteria to support CME
The 2009 PACME Spring Summit session titled Compliance
funding awards; criteria-based decision-making should
Continuous Improvement Working Session offered a number
rule both industry funded independent education and
of stimulating challenges and opportunities for discussion to its
marketing department grant awards.
attendees. Although the ACCME’s SCS, now adopted by the
ACPE and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC),
Almanac • Alliance for CME • Volume 31, No. 7 • July 2009 Visit the Alliance website at www.acme-assn.org • 3

4. www.NFEInitiative.org
Second Annual PACME Spring
Reality CME Summit: Meeting Roundup
Pesha Rubinstein, BA, CCMEP, Senior Director,
Your Guide to Which Way is Up!
CME, Education Outcomes Science
Question
Performance CME and Ethics: Major PACME Themes
What are some methods for disclosing speaker relationships
Two major themes characterized the Second Annual PACME
to learners?
Spring Summit. The first general theme was the importance of
Answer improving medical education through the greater adoption of
Accredited CME providers utilize a number of ways to disclose measurement processes and metrics analyses, while the second
the relevant financial relationships (or not) of CME faculty to the general theme focused on the ethics of industry-supported CME
learners prior to the CME activity taking place, which includes that often make headlines: compliance risks, lack of transparency
printing the disclosure information in the first few pages of the regarding payments from industry that are perceived to create
course syllabus—probably the most common method for conflicts of interest (COI), and the confusion that exists in our
documenting said disclosure for live courses. For enduring government and the general public about the difference between
materials, providers should force the learner through this disclosure CME and promotional material. Underlying discussions of both
information to maximally ensure their review of this information. In topics was the need for funders and grant recipients to advertise
other words, for online and other forms of electronic media, simply the successes of industry-supported CME by clarifying to the
providing a link to the disclosure information is not adequate. For academic and lay press the contribution that industry makes to
regularly scheduled series (RSS), the disclosure information could be education that results in improved patient outcomes.
printed on the RSS session flier that is distributed to learners, typed
at the top of the RSS session sign-in sheet, or displayed on a Would You Approve This Grant Request?
PowerPoint® slide as learners enter the meeting room. Whatever Frank Berry, BS, Director, Department of CME, Maryland
method is used, however, it must be in evidence in the activity file. State Medical Society, kicked off a session on integrating
That said, remember that CME providers are responsible for ACCME Criteria in grant applications. He linked the Level 3
disclosing the relevant financial relationships of all individuals in criteria to the first 15, and described criteria 16–22 as “being
a position to the control the content of the CME activity, so do not engaged with the environment.” The Level 3 criteria are the
forget communicating the course director, members of the “push from the nest that allow the provider to fly into the full
planning committee, and staff disclosure information to learners health care environment.”
prior to the activity taking place, and be clear what role the Attendees then reviewed actual grant proposals, broke off in
individual has in the CME activity. An example: small groups to assess whether they were submitted by CME
providers capable of delivering as Level 3 providers, and made
Planner/Faculty Disclosures presentations to a reactor panel. The three proposals described:
Jane Doe, MD, Course Director/Faculty 1. Bridging gaps in diabetes care in a Latino community
Doctor Jane Doe has indicated she has no financial relation-
2. A diabetes Performance Improvement (PI) initiative
ships to disclose relevant to the content of this CME activity.
3. A PI initiative in colorectal cancer.
John Doe, MD, Planner
Doctor John Doe has indicated he is a consultant for ABC Interestingly, several comments emerged from all the groups
Pharma Company. critiquing the three proposals:
Jonis Doe, Administrative Staff • “Too-dense writing”
Ms. Jonis Doe has indicated she has no financial relationships • “How the relevance of PI would be communicated to
to disclose relevant to the content of this CME activity. clinicians was missing”
Joseph Doe, MD, Faculty • “Missing format rationale”
Doctor Joseph Doe has indicated he is an advisory board • “Despite CME provider’s assurance, lack of confidence it has
member for XYZ Pharma Company. the ability to achieve those outcomes”
By Debra L. Gist, MPH, FACME, Assistant Editor • “Would this pass the Grassley test?”
4 • Visit the Alliance website at www.acme-assn.org Almanac • Alliance for CME • Volume 31, No. 7 • July 2009

5. One industry funder representative related that her excoriated in the press, the FDA is requiring it in certain
organization was not reviewing grants side by side with the instances. Werble believes that eventually the FDA may require
ACCME Updated Accreditation Criteria, but she predicted that pharmaceutical companies to support CME, and not just
as time moved on, CME provider level would have more of an speaker’s bureaus, in REMS cases.
effect on decision-making.
Demonstrating the Value Proposition for Support of
CME in Your Institution
The Level 3 criteria are the “push from
With an increasingly regulated environment, and Office of the
the nest that allow the provider to fly Inspector General (OIG) policy prohibiting marketing influence in
into the full health care environment.” CME, a challenge for pharmaceutical/device/biotechnology
company educational grants departments is to validate and justify
—Frank Berry the value they bring to their own organizations. Walter Wolyniec,
MSc, President, Confluent Healthcare Solutions, and Hilary
Schmidt, PhD, of sanofi-aventis, offered tips to industry leaders on
What’s Around the Corner for CME in Political and how to define the expectations and outcomes for CME support.
Legislative Realms Pharma funders were particularly interested in this session,
The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) Conflicts of Interest in having responded through use of the ARS on day one that
Medical Research, Education, and Practice, released the Demonstrating value of IME to the company was the biggest
week before the meeting, was invoked in a number of Summit challenge in starting and enhancing the IME/CME group (see
presentations, but particularly in the session on political and Figure 2).
legislative issues impacting CME. Facilitator Destry Sulkes, MD, This session took a novel approach and incorporated the point
Alliance Board Member, recalled that the 1999 IOM report, To of view of a sanofi-aventis marketing representative, Laura Fields,
Err is Human, ultimately led to the National Quality Forum’s PharmD, Associate VP, Metabolism Marketing, who commun-
Never Events. Both he and faculty presenter Damon Marquis, icated by telephone with PACME 2009 attendees about lessons
MA, MS, of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, informed the marketing division has learned from CME colleagues. Fields
attendees that IOM documents turn into policy and procedure. listed the following lessons that CME has taught the marketing
Marquis strongly recommended that attendees read the entire teams: the incorporation of more sophisticated education
report. He commented that the IOM recommends reforming the approaches that reach physicians, higher level outcomes made
financing system for CME, and predicts that although industry possible only through practical, hands-on, interactive workshops,
support will not go away, it will most certainly change.
Faculty for this session considered recent changes in the US Figure 2: What Is/Was Your Biggest Challenge
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to the new in Starting and Enhancing Your
administration. Cole Werble, Senior Executive Editor of the IME/CME Group? (For All Attendees)
publisher of The Pink Sheet, analyzed what he dubbed the FDA’s
“headline crisis.” Werble provided the audience with a rundown Responses
of the issues that have eroded the FDA’s credibility, including the Percent Count Answer Options
agency’s approval of Avandia, Plan B, and contaminations of 1% 1 Obtaining head count
tomatoes and pistachios. He commented that the FDA needs to be
perceived once more as a defender of the public health, and 32% 25 Securing grant budget funding
predicted that once it achieves that goal, it will engage more 4% 3 Internal training
actively again in drug approvals. He pointed out that Risk 39% 30 Demonstrating value of IME to the
Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) required by the FDA company
for some drugs will allow industry to produce mini-buster rather
6% 5 Overcoming barriers to risks in grant
than blockbuster drugs. Through the REMS programs, the FDA will
funding (eg, Senate Finance media)
actually require on-label speaker’s bureaus to ensure that
clinicians are educated as to the proper use of powerful drugs 0% 0 Other
that may have fatal side effects. Moderator John Kamp, JD, PhD, 18% 14 NA
of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication, pointed out the
100% 78 Totals
paradox that as industry-funded promotional education is
Almanac • Alliance for CME • Volume 31, No. 7 • July 2009 Visit the Alliance website at www.acme-assn.org • 5

6. Go Where The Talent Is
The Alliance for CME has created the CME Career Center to be your online resource for career connections in CME.
Post your job and resume at http://careers.acme-assn.org. Major discounts for Alliance members!
and the need to publicize or publish results to change public This session’s panel featured a number of representatives from
perception. Like the policy commentators in the previous session, various CME stakeholder environments. Nancy Davis, PhD,
Fields mentioned REMS and the FDA-mandated education that Executive Director, National Institute for Quality Improvement and
these drugs require. She remarked, "REMS presents a unique Education, pointed out that medical specialty societies are well-
opportunity for CME teams to deliver critical education to positioned to create performance-based CME, because their
preserve the benefit-risk of therapeutics, as mandated by the FDA. clinical guidelines can generally be translated into performance
Third party outcomes metrics reports are provided to the FDA in measures. This CME provider type has traditional educational
an area of education that they have deemed as being very delivery formats, but also has access to other modalities such as
important in dealing with risk.” journals and state chapter activities. The specialty societies can
Ratcheting up CME activities’ outcomes levels and the need to help with the transition into the CME future by indexing
publish the results were two messages that clearly came through educational content and implementing patient registries. She
in this session. Marketing management is used to hearing metrics identified the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American
like the number of doctors reached and the number of College of Cardiology, and the American College of Chest
prescriptions written. Metrics such as the number of patients Physicians as organizations with effective registries in use. Davis
whose care has been improved is congruous with a noted that implementing performance-based CME positions
pharmaceutical/device/biotechnology company’s mission of specialty medical societies to effectively link CME with MOC for
improving health care and improving the bottom line. Publication their members.
of successful educational interventions shows industry funder Bob Addleton, EdD, LPC, CCMEP, of the Physicians’ Institute
management the value of education, and makes it easier to justify for Excellence in Medicine, shared his thoughts on future CME
CME support through grants down the road. from the perspective of a state medical association. The
Physicians’ Institute has 16 state medical society members,
The Future of CME representing 900 accredited providers. Addleton pointed to the
Speculating on the future of CME is a standard topic at challenges of either not enough staff or lack of trained staff in this
conferences as well as in dialogue with colleagues, and the setting. There was a murmur of commentary when Addleton
discussion at this conference gave attendees the opportunity to informed the crowd that 15 Missouri providers had announced
reflect on accomplishments achieved and changes yet to come. they would no longer be offering accredited education due to
Through the ARS, Maureen Doyle-Scharff, MBA, FACME, of their lack of human and financial resources. Moving from the old
Pfizer Inc, obtained attendee feedback indicating that 92% of the way of doing CME to a higher-level CME would remain the
funders indicated they would be more likely to support a grant challenge of this poorly funded provider setting. Addleton
that included a budget to measure the activity’s impact on health advised, “Hospital-based CME people . . . need to rebrand
care quality or patient outcomes. Fifty-one percent of the funding themselves from the people who are in charge of the meeting
community in attendance voted that it would be appropriate to logistics to those who become advisors to physicians.”
fund grant requests only if they included post-initiative publication
of outcomes in a peer-reviewed journal.
Doyle-Scharff also posed questions that in the years before “Hospital-based CME people . . . need
maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements might have to rebrand themselves from the people
been unthinkable. She asked whether attendees could imagine a
world where:
who are in charge of the meeting
• The ACCME doesn’t exercise as much control as it logistics to those who become advisors
currently does to physicians.”
• American Medical Association Physician Recognition Award —Bob Addleton
(AMA PRA) Category 1 creditTM doesn’t have the same value
as it does today Destry Sulkes, MD, commented, “The idea of technology
• Licensing bodies don’t care about AMA PRA Category adding to CME’s impact in the future is a big no-brainer.” He
1 credit pointed out that the push for technology in improving health care
• AMA PRA Category 1 credit is one of many kinds of credit was set up in the previous administration, and that President
that learners can apply toward their MOC or maintenance of Obama’s selection of David Blumenthal, MD, MPP, as head of the
licensure (MOL). Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
6 • Visit the Alliance website at www.acme-assn.org Almanac • Alliance for CME • Volume 31, No. 7 • July 2009

7. Technology will advance our ability to see robust health care data and stratify information. Candid discussions about education
in real time. Sulkes briefly described the FDA’s Sentinel Initiative, a versus promotion and an ethical code addressing COI need to
partnership linking databases from Centers for Medicare and be part of future conversations on CME as well.
Medicaid Services, the Veterans Administration and Department of
Defense, and an array of private health care organizations, that
will be able to aggregate data across millions of Americans, resul- “Prevention is one of the futures of the
ting in important data such as drug safety, hospitalizations and health care industry.”
physician visits, all of which will contribute up-to-date information —Jann Balmer
that will influence US health policy. Sulkes commented that the
Sentinel Initiative will provide new data and new pathways for the
dissemination of up-to-date CME material in the years ahead. From the program presentations, attendees could conclude
Alliance President, Jann Balmer, PhD, presented a detailed that CME planning and educational effectiveness will be
summary of the future of CME and put the challenges of today’s demonstrated by the publication of objective data related to
CME environment in the context of today’s health care improvements in patient care. There was a general consensus
environment. Challenges include: among speakers that some form of a federally-legislated Sunshine
• A highly regulated environment due to the FDA and the OIG Act, with mandated reporting of payments by industry to health
care providers, will become policy—and that it would behoove
• New and evolving frameworks regarding ACCME processes industry funders to embrace and adapt to the concept of a more
and review, MOC, MOL, and informatics and information transparent process.
technology The CME community has seen many changes over the past
• A greater general public awareness of CME and calls for few years that include education divisions separated out from
greater transparency, improved ethical behavior, and more marketing departments in pharmaceutical companies, funders’
effective management of industry relations. transparency databases, and a broader acceptance of linking
Balmer also offered some criticism regarding documentation quality improvement with CME. CME providers have been
that satisfied ACCME requirements. “I have concerns that the charged by the ACCME to be change agents. Clearly, CME
focus on accreditation documentation can and often does funders are ready to support CME activities provided by change
overshadow the important work of developing effective education agents who can produce the data that objectively demonstrate
for our physician and health care professional audiences with the improvements in patient care.
goal of improved performance and practice.” She proposed a Additional Resources
future in which more monies could be spent on effective 1. Berwick DM. What “patient-centered” should mean: confessions of an
education rather than on compliance tracking. extremist. Health Affairs. 2009;28(4):w555–w565.
The Alliance president shared one idea for meeting the 2. Institute of Medicine. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and
challenges in the current CME environment is for CME Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
professionals to “design [activities] in a very purposeful manner, 3. US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare
which goes not only to diagnostics and therapeutics, but also to Research and Quality, National Quality Measures Clearinghouse website:
www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov.
preventive strategies. Prevention is one of the futures of the health
4. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative website: www.pcpcc.net.
care industry, which is the talk of the current administration.”
Balmer’s other suggestions included a patient-centric focus for 5. Institute for Healthcare Improvement website: www.ihi.org.
guidelines-based CME, and clinician self-assessment. Team-based
care would contribute to addressing challenges of the future, as
would professional education that addressed informatics and Green Tip
taught health care practitioners about how to manage, analyze, When choosing a site for your next meeting, institute due
diligence in finding out what, if any, green features they offer
(such as recycling, water in pitchers instead of single use
Share your thoughts on Alliance issues bottles, energy-efficient lighting). Negotiate to include
by contacting the Board at: additional green features in the contract (utilizing local food,
no disposables).
acmeboard@acme-assn.org. —Submitted by Brooke Taylor
Almanac • Alliance for CME • Volume 31, No. 7 • July 2009 Visit the Alliance website at www.acme-assn.org • 7

8. PINPOINT YOUR PERFECT PROSPECTS WITH MULTIDIMENSIONAL LISTS (SM) FROM
Alliance for CME Value Vendor for lists, featuring AMA Physicians
For more information, see <mmslists.com>, e-mail <sales@mmslists.com>, or call 1-800-MED-LIST (633-5478) or 1-630-350-1717.
Calendar of Events
September 9-11, 2009 October 14-16, 2009 January 27–30, 2010
NIQIE 2009 20th Annual Conference of the National Task Alliance for Continuing Medical Education
Mastering Continuous Performance Improvement Force on CME Provider/Industry Collaboration 35th Annual Conference
Intercontinental Chicago O'Hare Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, Baltimore, MD Establishing Continuing Medical Education as a
Rosemont (Chicago), IL www.ama-assn.org/go/cmetaskforce Pathway to Better Patient Care
www.niqie.org Hilton® New Orleans Riverside
New Orleans, LA
September 14-30, 2009 www.acme-assn.org
NC-CME Exam
www.nccme.org
Alliance Almanac
Almanac Editors 2009 Board of Directors Headquarters Office
Jane Eckstein, MA—Editor-in-Chief Jann T. Balmer, PhD, FACME, President* Paul D. Weber, MA—Executive Director*
Marissa Seligman, PharmD—Associate Editor Maureen Doyle-Scharff, MBA, FACME, Bernie Halbur, PhD, FACME—Professional Development
Derek Dietze, MA—Assistant Editor Secretary/Treasurer* and Meeting Management Director
Debra L. Gist, MPH, FACME—Assistant Editor Sue Ann Capizzi, MBA, FACME, Past President* Jay Brown, BA—Project Manager and Meeting Planner
Robin Hendricks, MAdEd—Assistant Editor Bob Addleton, EdD James C. Leist, EdD, FACME—Staff Consultant
Paul D. Weber, MA—Managing Editor Winnie Brown, MPA Diane Baker O’Hern—Professional Development Coordinator
Mitch Pruitt—Production Editor Nancy Davis, PhD Marissa K. Green—Manager, Membership Information Services
Barbara Huffman, MEd Anne Marie Smith, BS—Staff Assistant
Jack Kues, PhD Debrah Fisher, BA—Manager of Member Services
Almanac Editorial Board Damon K. Marquis, MA Alison Skinner, BA—Executive Assistant
Linda DuPont, BA George Mejicano, MD* Jessica Romano, BS—Product Development/Marketing Specialist
Paul Frisch, JD Greg Paulos, MBA Jill Real, BS—Bookkeeper
Paige Green, MEd Linda Raichle, PhD, FACME Amy Guberman, MPM—Staff Consultant
Kevin Heffernan Mark Schaffer, EdM Megan Pace, BA—Administrative Assistant
Kate Regnier, MBA Destry Sulkes, MD
Tiffany Stepien, BS The Almanac is published monthly by the Alliance for CME,
1025 Montgomery Highway, Suite 105, Birmingham, AL 35216;
Brooke Taylor, MPH *Executive Committee Phone: 205-824-1355; Fax: 205-824-1357; email: acme@acme-assn.org;
NaBrina J. Webb, MBA ISSN#1076-3899. The views expressed in the Almanac are those of
Betsy Woodall, PharmD © Copyright 2009 by the Alliance for Continuing Medical the authors and are not intended to represent the views of the
Education®. All rights reserved. Alliance or its membership.
Alliance for Continuing Medical Education® Nonprofit Org.
1025 Montgomery Highway US Postage
Suite 105 PAID
Birmingham, AL 35216 Permit No. 2230
Birmingham, AL
Address Service Requested