When physicians run an organization in name or in-fact, bias issues appear relevant.
While the for-profit MedEd community has long been looked at for bias issues, it seems more likely that within MedEd, clinical investigators who run their own medical education or society ventures are a true concern. These physicians are often leaders in clinical trials and often obtain and control the funds for these operations.
Many investigators are owners and/or partners in firms that inform and educate clinicians in new drug therapies.
They often hide behind a "society type" image or a "not-for-profit" veil.
Pharma is often confused, as we all are, about the constructs of these physician-operated information channels, and as such, Pharma often supports the very organizations the new CME guidelines, Pharma industry guidelines and Pharma's own compliance/CME funding rules were created to avoid.
It seems clear that clinical investigators should not own or operate information distribution channels.
Like the firewalls between promotion and CME, a barrier needs to be created between investigators and their ownership or leadership in organizations that are single-focused and primarily aligned with one or two therapies that exist only because funding can be obtained.
Comments