Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Overly simplistic approach with ignorance of rural CanadaRE: Overly simplistic approach with ignorance of rural Canada
Thanks for taking the time to provide the CFPC with the feedback provided in your letter. The CFPC makes no distinction in its Mainpro+ policies between generic and research-based drug manufacturers, nor does the new National Standard for Support of Accredited CPD Activities. Access to certified CPD for rural and remote family doctors is a real challenge, in particular because of the difficulty in securing visiting speakers and in arranging practice coverage to allow doctors to attend out of town CPD events. The increasing access to certified online learning, in the form of videoconferences, webinars and modules helps address this challenge. Please note that sponsorship of CPD events by the pharmaceutical industry is permitted by the new National Standard, although it does strengthen the expectation that the CPD organizers, usually physician-led organizations, are fully independent and in the driver’s seat for the event. It is true to say that recent rule changes no longer permit HPI companies to act independently as organizers and providers of CPD events, which was a CPD staple in years past for many doctors. Today, such events are viewed as being at high risk for commercial bias and are viewed by the CFPC as marketing rather than education.
As for the journal, all pharmaceutical ads that appear in Canadian Family Physician must be PAAB (Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board) approve...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: None declared. - Page navigation anchor for RE: Overly simplistic approach with ignorance of rural CanadaRE: Overly simplistic approach with ignorance of rural Canada
I feel obliged to respond to the CFPC's approach to managing the relationship to the pharmaceutical industry.
Firstly, I think there is bias exhibited towards the generic industry, which has been shown to have many potential conflicts of interest and provides financial incentives to many in the greater pharmaceutical industry without providing any educational nor research components.
Secondly, there are challenging issues to providing quality CME in rural areas. I personally think Industry sponsorship has provided some solutions at times to bridge gaps that may not be experienced in more urban settings in this vast country. I think the College has increasingly put forth policies on CME that are alienating many rural CME opportunities.
Thirdly, I look at advertising in Canadian Family Physician and note there are very few standards applied with respect to medical evidence; the dollars received seem to trump the high standards to which the College is supposedly trying to adhere.
Overall, I think there is a "Holier Than Thou" attitude that is permeating the College. The rather borderline and simplistic attitude of Big Pharma being bad is quite insulting to at least some of the Membership. Like most generalizations, this is likely unfair and overly simplistic. And I think the College has gone too far.
Competing Interests: I have had past honoraria with Servier, AstraZeneca, EliLilly, Merck, and Lundbeck.