View source for Theme:D95899c3-8e4e-4ba4-adba-ddec07ba9106

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
|Title=Industry-funded continuing medical education – ethical conundrums
|Is About=Healthcare industry funding plays a major role in continuing medical education (CME) for healthcare professionals.  CME is necessary to ensure the maintenance or development of new skills in the era of rapid increase in the number of complex treatments and technologies. While industry support provides access to high-quality learning, it also raises ethical concerns about bias, influence, and the integrity of medical decision-making.
|Important Because=Continuing education is essential for physicians navigating rapidly evolving medical knowledge, new therapies, and emerging technologies. However, high-quality CME is expensive, and many educational providers rely on pharmaceutical and device‑industry funding to sustain programs. This creates a structural tension: industry support can enhance educational reach, but it also risks shaping content, speaker selection, or topic emphasis in ways that align with commercial interests. (1)
|Important For=Clinical researchers; Physicians
|Has Best Practice=Across Europe and the United States, a range of practices has been developed to manage the ethical challenges of industry-funded CME.

In Europe, the MedTech Europe “Code of Ethical Business Practice” prohibits direct sponsorship of individual healthcare professionals. Instead, industry provides dedicated educational grants to professional societies and healthcare organizations; with that shift, professional societies have become key intermediaries that manage grant applications, ensure compliance with the MedTech Europe and EFPIA Codes, and maintain the separation between commercial and scientific functions. (2)

In the United States, CME providers follow the ACCME Standards for Integrity and Independence, which separate education from promotion. The federal Sunshine Act adds transparency by requiring companies to publicly report all transfers of value to physicians, including educational support. Industry codes such as PhRMA and AdvaMed reinforce these expectations by prohibiting gifts, entertainment, and direct payment for attendance at educational events. (3)

Across both regions, these regulatory pressures have pressured organisations to adopt sponsorship models that protect educational integrity while still keeping programs financially sustainable. Multi-sponsor sessions, independent scientific tracks, and institution-managed hands-on training are increasingly common. Providers also rotate faculty to avoid over-reliance on industry-affiliated experts. Transparency portals, whether mandated by EFPIA in Europe or by federal law in the U.S., allow researchers, journalists, and the public to examine patterns of industry support and identify potential conflicts of interest.

Together, these practices show a clear global shift toward more transparent, accountable, and professionally governed CME.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}