However, some in pharma do not want prescribing decisions to be based upon clear-cut, objectively measurable criteria. One reason pharma’s give so much money to psychiatrists is because theirs is a profession where the vast majority of diagnoses are based entirely on criteria that cannot be assessed with a biological measurement. With other conditions, such as cancer, diabetes, or infection, objectively measurable outcomes are possible. “Diseases” based on pathologies that cannot be measured objectively allow one to create a larger patient pool through continually evolving or subjective “diagnostic” criteria.

Bernard pointed out the relationship with Medscape.

Re CME I will go back to a comment on here a year or so ago. If pharma doesn’t sponsor it, who will? At least to the extent it is provided and required. Certaily pharma has interest in being involved, and of course in the past it had a heavy hand in controlling the topics covered. Nowadays I don’t think so. It is extremely difficult for their agencies to control the message. There are significant controls in place within pharma to prevent marketing’s involvement. Perhaps this is why companies are getting out of CME delivered through for-profit providers.

Is ghostwritten CME bad? No. Can it be - of course but the immediate assumption that ghostwriting = wrong is flawed in my opinion. That’s a topic been hammered enough on here already I think though.

I’m reminded of some “CME” I read, which centered on an article titled “Implementing Changing Guidelines on Adult Immunizations: An Expert Interview With Gregory A. Poland, MD, MACP”, which was blatantly and shamelessly supported by no less than GSK, Merck, and Novartis. Of course, their “expert” had seemingly never heard of a vaccine that he was not completely enamoured with. Do I believe that both the CME and Guidelines on Adult Immunizations are effectively ghostwritten by pharma? What do you think?

Patrons - I would say that “health-related info for the public” is aimed at the public. There is much to be gained for sponsors in having a reach into the public domain. The reason these sites ask for log in is to have more pre-selection from the signer-in, so that if one selects info on ADHD and high cholsterol for example, they can direct related info to that individual. And yes, that pleases the sponsors because they can connect directly or indirectly, depending on the choice of the registered member, on a topic of stated interest.

If you are implying that WebMD may be trying to reach medical professionals, well perhaps but I doubt it. The level of info presented there would be too basic I think. Physicians do use the web for info though, and as new - younger - docs and practitioners come along more will rely on the web for access and info. Already about 80% of docs use Google for ‘education’, 85% use it for medical searches and info, and 60% for new product information, so the practice is well established and will only increase. I don’t think that WebMD is where they would go first though.