Return to Previous Page

ACCME Lauds AAFP Policy on Identifying, Resolving CME Conflicts of Interest

By News Staff
3/18/2005

The AAFP has again shown itself to be a leader in the realm of CME accreditation, receiving unexpected kudos in the process. The source of the kudos: members of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. The reason for the praise: the Academy’s policy on identifying and managing conflicts of interest among CME planners, faculty, authors and reviewers.

After the ACCME approved its updated Standards for Commercial Support last September, the council began discussing with CME providers their need for information about the new expectations and how to implement them. Based on that input, the ACCME has developed and disseminated various tools related to the new standards. At least one aspect of the standards remains problematic, according to Norman Kahn, M.D., AAFP vice president for science and education.

“The biggest controversy in the standards has to do with managing and resolving conflicts of interest that are revealed through disclosure,” Kahn said. “It’s a huge challenge for the nation.”

This story first appeared in the March 18, 2005, AAFP Direct.
The environment surrounding medical research and publication of results is changing, Kahn explained. NIH, for example, has new conflict-of-interest rules that require divestiture of conflicts, and the FDA has similar requirements. “The New England Journal of Medicine won’t let people write editorials if they have relationships with industry,” he said.

“There has been a lot of concern that resolution of conflicts that were disclosed was always going to mean either divestiture or exclusion,” said Kahn. “In medicine, that’s difficult because a lot of people have their research funded by industry or they’re on speakers’ bureaus, or there’s some other circumstance. So the nation has been very anxious, not yet able to figure out how in medicine they’re going to be able to manage conflicts of interest that are disclosed.”

Enter the AAFP.

“Lo and behold, the Academy comes up with a solution,” Kahn said. “We not only have a solution that gives several choices -- it isn’t a binary choice, all or nothing, black or white, in or out -- there are several options; it is also a one-year pilot that will allow us to learn from our experience.”

Among elements at the core of AAFP’s policy on managing an identified conflict:
  • The validity of the relevant content can be assured through an evidence-based process.
  • Content validity can be assured through peer review.
  • A speaker with a disclosed conflict may address a topic on which no practice recommendations are based, leaving another faculty member to make the relevant practice recommendations.
AAFP will begin the one-year pilot in May, with a report going to the Commission on Continuing Medical Education in summer 2006.

The AAFP Board of Directors earlier this month formally approved the COCME's recommendation to adopt as Academy policy the updated ACCME commercial support standards.

Visit the ACCME Web site to link to various tools and resources the ACCME has developed to implement the updated standards.