I asked that question simply to hear what kind of answer would come back, and because I already knew why they chose to eschew restricted grants.

As to vaccines, I don’t know the answer to that question, which is a good one. Sorry about that.

Thanks for stopping by,
ed

I was interested in the example of immunization sessions being funded only by companies with a vested interest. The link to their May “pharma free” program shows no sessions on vaccines. In such a dynamic field hopefully future meetings will have updates in this area for the OAFP membership

Let’s say you have high cholesterol, and you’re 50. Should you’re insurance pay for cholesterol lowering medicines - to save the expense of heart disease later on? Yes. But what if you probably won’t get heart disease until you’re 67ish? This insurance company no longer deals with you and handed you off to medicare? From a purely financial standpoint your insurance company only needs to care about problems that could develop while they insure you - not all problems that will affect you at any point in your life.

I think it’s easy to criticize health insurance companies (probably easier than pharma-companies), and I don’t want to insinuate that this behavior is common. Just that it is possible. If Oregon wants to take the high road, then take the highest road and don’t accept any financial support from anyone. It looks like at this point they’re only considering support from other sources.

I do not see where they are saying that they are still taking pharma money through a third party CME organization. If that is happening then of course it defeats the purpose…

Additionally, we do not know here if in fact they will not take money from “outside interest” or other un related industry.

Yes, there is a bias anywhere you go. That being said, this is still a step in the right direction.

However, I am aware of the concern that Hospital and health care plans can have some influence. But what can they really influence? Will they influence the CME programs to slant towards denying and with holding drugs until it is really really necessary? What benefit would that be? If treatment is withheld or denied (and of course I do understand the obstacles we all face today with our health care providers) than invariably it will be more costly to manage the patient - net result no savings at all.

So, I think we need to be mindful of the slippery slope mentality.

Right, so let’s take the most negative view of everyone involved, since that’s what creationg of this restriction implies. Would you rather have doctors learning from pharma companies trying to sell overpriced medications with only modest improvement over existing medicines…or would you rather have doctors learning from insurance companies who profit by denying patients healthcare access (doc visits, procedures, hospital stays, and drugs)? If Oregon want to take the high road and deny all external pharma influence, they should deny ALL external influence, so I hope they don’t take any financial support from insurance companies.

Plus, doesn’t it make sense that CE focuses on new treatments? Pre-existing drugs already got highly detailed coverage, in a little place I like to call medical school.

You know, acts approved by lawmakers can be reversed or discontinued. If that were to occur, it would benefit many more instead of the microscopic pockets in medical communities taking a stance such as this one in this post, which I admire greatly for the stance they have chosen to take for all the right reasons.

Ed, I would be particularly interested in to know why the OAFP does not seek grants from non-healthcare related foundations, is it too much work?

The thought that accepting unrestricted grants from industry given through a CME provider serves as a “firewall” is ludicrous and former pharma Marketing Exec should know this.

Ed, is there any way you can keep an eye on this? I am particularly interested if after a year or so, prescription writing/habits change in any way. Would be interesting also to poll the patients and see if they notice anything different.

Great piece, thanks,