1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
67EEFA47FCED68E8F8525759900723ECC
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/continuing-medical-education-trends-in-structure-and-functional-management?opendocument
18
19opendocument
2018.232.99.123
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB




» Products & Services » » Medical Affairs » Medical Education

Continuing Medical Education: Trends in Structure and Functional Management

ID: 5037


Features:

6 Info Graphics

7 Data Graphics

56 Metrics

4 Best Practices


Pages/Slides: 26


Published: Pre-2014


Delivery Format: Online PDF Document


 

License Options:
close

Single User: Authorizes use by the person who places the order or for whom the order was placed.

Sitewide: Authorizes use of the report for a geographic site. All people at site can view the report for a year and copies can be printed.

Corporate: Authorizes use for the entire company for a year and copies can be printed. No limitations for usage inside the company.




Buy Now

 


  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • SPECIAL OFFER
Non-members: Click here to review a complimentary excerpt from "Continuing Medical Education: Trends in Structure and Functional Management"

STUDY OVERVIEW

The trend toward greater transparency in physician interactions has affected how companies approach Continuing Medical Education (CME). Internally, the CME function has migrated from marketing terrain to that of medical affairs. Externally, leading companies are transferring funding from third-party vendors to teaching hospitals and medical associations.

This Best Practices, LLC study explores how North American and European biopharmaceutical companies are structuring and managing their CME functions. This research evaluates the merits of common CME structures (e.g., Centralized vs. Decentralized) in both North America and Europe, and reveals key trends in functional responsibility for CME.

CME heads can use the industry benchmarks and qualitative insights from this research to effectively position their CME group and promote a plan of action capable of fulfilling its full value potential.

KEY TOPICS

  • Executive Summary & Key Findings
  • The CME Landscape: Current Trends and Future Direction
  • Current CME Structural Trends
  • CME Functional Management

KEY METRICS
  • CME Delivery by Country
  • Centralized vs. Decentralized Structures
  • CME Functional Oversight
  • Levels of CME Management by a Single Group, Europe
  • Levels of CME Management by a Single Group, North America
  • Marketing vs. Medical Affairs Management, Europe
  • Marketing vs. Medical Affairs Management, North America

SAMPLE KEY FINDINGS

Decentralized CME Structures Predominate: The majority of benchmark companies do not utilize a globally centralized function for CME management or oversight. Companies employing such centralized structures report signficant impact through increased leverage of budgets and headcount. However, decentralized structures, capable of adapting to the rapidly evolving CME marketplace, are more typical.

Medical Affairs and Communications Commonly Have CME Oversight: For both Europe and North America, CME is most often managed within the Medical Affairs or Medical Communications function. The greatest difference between the two markets is that a significant segment in Europe manages the function through Marketing or a separate operating company.

METHODOLOGY

Best Practices, LLC employed a two-pronged approach to this research: 30 CME leaders and practitioners from 26 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies participated in a quantitative study and also contributed their observations through deep-dive interviews.


Industries Profiled:
Pharmaceutical; Medical Device; Biotech; Chemical; Health Care


Companies Profiled:
Alcon Labs; Amylin; AstraZeneca; Baxter; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eli Lilly; Genentech; HemoCue; Janssen-Cilag; Merck; Merck Serono; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Ortho Clinical Diagnostics; Pfizer; Roche; Sanofi-aventis; Sepracor; Talecris; Teva; Vianex; AMK; AXDEV; Indegene; Indicia Medical Education; LLC; Invivo Communications; Medimix International; WentzMiller & Associates; American Society of Clinical Oncologists; American Society of Hypertension; American Society of Transplantation; International Society of Hypertension in Balcks; Mount Sinai NY; National Kidney Foundation; University of California; University of Cincinnati; University of Florida; University of Wisconsin

If you purchase Best Practice Database document(s), you will have 30 days from the date of purchase to apply some or all of the cost of the document(s) toward the cost of a Full Access Individual, Pharma, Group or University Membership. Write us at DatabaseTeam@bestpracticesllc.com or call David Guinn at 919-767-9179 if you have any questions.