CME/H Challenges: Real Life Association Industry Issues
Last Spring, USA Today ran a controversial piece by two writers from Pro Publica, a group which describes itself on its website as “an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. .. by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.”
The article focused on spending by industry to reach doctors—through education, exhibits, sponsored speakers, or promotional opportunities—at the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS). Without any attempt to break out the “nearly half the $16 million the heart society collected in 2010 [that] came from makers of drugs, catheters, and defibrillators” as disclosed on the HRS web site, the article talked about the fact that these monies were derived from CME, exhibits, grants, or sponsorships, to cite a few options, throughout the year.
The problem with an article like this in USA Today is that everyone reads it. Publications like USA Today have a much broader reach than our industry publications, and that reach extends to senior managers in industry, analysts and investors, and the voting public. It’s easy to get defensive when an article like this appears, filled, such as it was, with unexplored assumptions and misleading generalities.
But perhaps this is a call for exhibitors and associations to review how sponsorships influence public perception and the possible appearance of conflict of interest between physicians and industry. One of the many ‘unsaids’ in the article is the fact that in supporting meetings, industry is making it more cost effective for doctors to stay up to date within their specialties and, in doing so, is building better healthcare for everyone. We in the industry know that the costs of producing meetings is rising. Short of increasing association dues, these costs need to be absorbed. We also know that industry wants promotional value from sponsorship investments.
One solution is to go back to the drawing board and analyze what constitutes effective promotion and what is ineffective and misleading. It is equally important to be completely transparent in the sponsorship offerings. We need to explore new ways for promotional dollars to be spent that benefit both the association and the sponsor.
Without a doubt, the pool of potential sponsors is being taken to task in the light of this type of publicity. Brave associations are holding town hall meetings so that industry and associations working together can come up with a menu of possibilities.
The relationships that exist between industry and associations—and therefore their members, the healthcare professionals—are strong and too important to be oversimplified by articles like the one in USA Today which sees doctors as targets and industry as sharp shooters.
Email this article to a colleague
About the Author
Tipton Shonkwiler is Brand Director/VP, CFE, Plan Ahead Events, has been directly involved with assembling and promoting franchise conventions and tradeshows for United Franchise Group since joining the organization.