CME, Industry and Outcomes

Recent medical literature describes the challenges of demonstrating the impact of CME on physician learning (with a focus on the lack of impact), and the need to reform the current system.  Writers suggest that it really is not having the impact that it should, given the financial resources provided.  Others have questioned how it is funded, suggesting that it may be biased given the resources provided by industry, and that it should be changed. 

While I admit my own bias as an Associate Dean for CME for a major medical school, I feel that it is important to study the peer-reviewed literature to best understand this important topic.

First, is the industry influence really that significant?  A piece by Cervero discusses this, and found limited evidence of the impact of industry influence on CME.  In the recent ACCME 2014 report (Table 8), only 11% of accredited CME received commercial support from industry.  My interpretation of this is that the commercial support is certainly not an overwhelming part of CME programs (our own institutional data would definitely mirror this finding).

Second, what is the real impact of CME?  The same above author recently published a piece in JCEHP (full disclosure: I am the social media editor for this journal, but was not involved in any way in the creation, revision, or decision to publish this manuscript) that concluded that CME can indeed impact patient outcomes and physician behavior (the former more than the latter).

Third, improvements in how CME is disseminated should occur.  Within this realm, patients should be included, and interprofessional learning should occur in team environments; this is highlighted by the new President and CEO of the ACCME, Dr. Graham McMahon, in a Viewpoint piece in JAMA that came out online earlier this week.

So where should we go from here?  I think there are several things we can consider.  Most importantly, physicians and other healthcare providers should continue to learn in order to provide optimal care of their patients in a changing environment; CME is one way to aid this learning.  Those in the field have been thinking about how to restructure it for many years and have made major strides in focusing on quality improvement.  Second, we should also consider learning healthcare systems as a way to promote learning for those who provide care for patients.  Lastly, we should be diligent about using technology to make our learning more effective.  Examples include online journal clubs and virtual communities of practice.  Given the complexities that abound in medicine in the current environment, anything that can make the process of learning how to "keep up" and best care for our patients easier should be welcomed.  

The Sunshine Act and Open Payments

Today was a busy day for news about the Sunshine Act and Open Payments. I was asked to present pertinent information about the Sunshine Act to some of the leadership of the medical school where I work, the Indiana University School of Medicine, about this topic.  Essentially, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (PPSA, shortened to “Sunshine Act”) came out of the Affordable Care Act, and requires that manufacturers of drugs and medical devices (which I'll call “industry”) collect, track and report all payments and financial relationships with physicians and teaching hospitals.  This system was designed to establish a transparent national disclosure system.

As a result, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, was tasked with creating a website that provided information about these relationships so that the public can make informed decisions.  That website is known as “Open Payments”.   

As of the time of this writing, for approximately the next three weeks, the “Dispute” period  is still open, whereby individual physicians can register on the website, and review their own data.  If one feels there is a discrepancy, then s/he can file a dispute that industry companies will need to review, and ultimately reconcile.

For my presentation today, I carefully made detailed slides for the leadership to share with the faculty.  I decided today to add in some screen shots of what the report looks like to an individual doctor.  To my dismay, this was the screen I found.

Intrigued with the word "portlet", I sent a request to the CMS Help Desk.  I was pleased with the response time of just a few hours.  This was the response:

[The] portal is down for maintenance at this time.  There is no ETA at this point, but we are working to get this resolved as soon as possible.  We apologize for any inconvenience and Thank you for your understanding.

For further questions please feel free to contact the open payments help desk at 1-855-326-8366.  We are open Monday - Friday from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm CST, excluding Federal holidays.

Thank you,

Open Payments

I wondered what the issue could be.  It turns out that earlier today, this piece was posted by ProPublica.  

How timely! 

I really do hope for two big fixes.  First, that examples like this one here (which generated the ProPublica story) are rare.  The registration to gain access to one’s Open Payments information is complex and cumbersome (the User Guide is unfortunately not much simpler, at 359 pages in length), which one might assume means that CMS is really trying to make sure that someone who logs in is indeed who s/he said s/he is.  Second, that the website can be opened back up very soon. Time is slowly ticking away in the Dispute period.

I am all for transparency, but if a system is going to be put in place to “provide the public with information to make informed decisions”, the information in that system needs to be a) relatively easy to access, and b) correct first and foremost.  It would make sense to me that at the least, industry use the NPI numbers (each physician is assigned a unique number for ONLY that physician and no one else) to insure that physicians with similar names are not mixed up.

-For information about the Sunshine Act and the Open Payments process, see this from the AAMC. 

 -For a step-by-step process about how to register, review, and potentially dispute one’s data, see this from Stanford, along with this FAQ.

 -For a very recent survey of industry and of physicians (85% of whom stated they would like to review their own data BEFORE its submitted to CMS; 7% actually have reviewed their data, however), see this.

By the way, the presentation went fine.  Faculty leaders had great questions.  The take home discussion from many who have already gone through the process: allot two hours for the entire process of registering, waiting for clearance, and potentially for disputing any data that one feels is incorrect.

Fellow doctors, please take the time to review the process and your own data.  After all, we are curious about the details.