Cardiovascular Business - November/December 2008 - (Page 13)

Commentary › By Barry T. K aTzen, MD The Death of CME as We Know It? A variety of ills would ensue if industry support for meetings dried up N o one disputes the good of maintaining a healthy distance between the commercial interests of pharmaceutical and device companies and the continuing medical education (CME) needs of physicians. While the two remain inextricably intertwined, all of us clearly understand the potential danger in unchecked promotion masquerading as science. A medical professional’s decision about how to treat a patient should not depend upon how much money any given company has spent on marketing. Rather, our knowledge should be based on the collective intelligence of physicians who are willing to share with one another what works and does not work as gleaned from research, trials and experience. From this ideal comes the CME meeting. Keeping CME meetings viable, however, very much involves the same companies that we must otherwise deal with at arm’s length. Without question, grants from companies that manufacture drugs and devices make most CME meetings possible. At the International Symposium on Endovascular Therapy (ISET), for example, such funding covers the expensive, but highly effective, teaching tool known as the live-case demon- stration, an educational method I pioneered some two decades ago (see image above). For practicing physicians, the opportunity to view in real-time procedures performed by experts at leading medical institutions and transmitted to, for example, a hotel ballroom that can seat hundreds, provides the best alternative to actually standing in the procedure room or going back to the classroom. Industry grants also defray the cost of bringing together recognized authorities from around the world to serve as faculty who comment on the live cases and deliver lectures. Other enhancements, such as instant polling that engages attendees and provides important feedback, likewise require the support of industry. What would we give up? Without industry support, ISET and similar meetings would otherwise have to charge physicians thousands of dollars in registration fees, a scenario that would lead to a variety of ills. First, most doctors would have to rethink how often they attend national CME meetings. Many would certainly look at lessexpensive online, journal-based and locally produced activities. Each of these has its place and contributes something to the overall goal of deepening a physician’s knowledge. As a main source of information, however, these options are limited—in the first two cases, by a lack of interactivity and, in the third, a potential lack of diversity in the views and experiences of the faculty. Dr. Katzen is course director of The International Symposium on Endovascular Therapy (ISET), and founder and medical director of Baptist Cardiac & Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla. CardiovascularBusiness.com Cardiovascular Business 13 http://www.CardiovascularBusiness.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Cardiovascular Business - November/December 2008

Cardiovascular Business - November/December 2008 Contents First Word Cover Story: Practice Management Software Moves Beyond Bean Counting The Death of CME as We Know It? Clinical Study Digets: Triple-Antiplatelet Therapy; Ex-Vioxx Users Beware Shockwaves Subside from the FDA's Echo Contract Warning Burning Question: Does Laser Heart Therapy for Angina Really Work? Advanced Visualization Adds New Practive Dimension Coronary Calcium Scoring Program Reaps Dividends Interventionalists Get Pumped Up About Mechanical Chest Compression Trials Force Physicians to Re-Examine Oral Anti-Diabetic Drug Protocols News & Views Calendar Reader Resources The ACC Corner

Cardiovascular Business - November/December 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.