1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
647E2687EC5C138B68525755F005725D0
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/educating-the-market-creating-value-through-support-of-continuing-medical-education?opendocument
18
19opendocument
203.88.220.93
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25BMR




Products & Services ╗

Educating the Market: Creating Value Through Support of Continuing Medical Education

ID: SM-180


Features:

13 Info Graphics

25 Data Graphics

315 Metrics

23 Narratives

50 Best Practices


Pages: 65


Published: Pre-2014


Delivery Format: Shipped


 

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

 

919-403-0251

  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • STUDY SNAPSHOT
  • KEY FINDINGS
  • VIEW TOC AND LIST OF EXHIBITS
As new therapies emerge, physicians and consumers alike face not only expanded treatment options but also the attendant challenge of choosing the most appropriate drug. Despite Continuing Medical Education's (CME) obvious usefulness in that purpose, controversy surrounds it. CME’s structuring and application is plagued by lack of standardization, accreditation issues, and charges of conflict of interest between the pharmaceutical industry – its main purveyor and funder – and beneficiary medical associations and teaching hospitals.

To this backdrop, pharma is reconsidering its role in the CME process and recipient institutions are examining its long-term direction. Poised between its great potential and its problematic administration, CME raises pertinent questions about the healthcare relationship between consumers, physicians and pharmaceutical companies, functioning as a harbinger for future interactions. Marketing executives and managers can use the key benchmark metrics, executive insights and recommendations in this report to map a path to future success in support of CME.


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


Companies Profiled:
Alcon; Sanofi-Aventis; Amylin; AstraZeneca; Baxter; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eli Lilly & Co.; Genentech; HemoCue; Janssen-Cilag; Merck; Merck Serono; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Ortho Clinical Diagnostics; Pfizer; Roche; Sepracor; Talecris; Teva; Vianex


Study Snapshot

This benchmarking study, based on benchmark survey data and executive interviews of 30 participants from 26 leading pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical education companies, was conducted to identify the salient trends and likely directions of CME in the North American and European marketplaces. This report provides benchmarks, insights and best practices in such key areas as:
  • Geographic Delivery of CME
  • Structural Management of CME
  • CME Investment Budgets for North America & Europe
  • Planned versus Spontaneous CME investment
  • Functional Responsibility for CME
  • CME Delivery in North America (Company-directed versus 3rd party, etc.)
  • CME Delivery in Europe
  • Background & Experience of CME Employees
  • Tenure of CME Employees
  • Use of E-CME in North America & Europe
  • Effectiveness Ratings for CME Delivery Activities in North America & Europe
The study also incorporates third-party input from seven CME vendors and eight medical associations and teaching hospitals.

Key Findings

The following are select key findings from the report executive summary:
Decentralized Structures Reflect Balkanized CME Landscape: Decentralized management structures proliferate across the CME landscape where language and learning style differences and local market variation create hurdles for centralized management structures.

The Internet is Quickly Growing in Relevance as a Delivery Mechanism: E-CME is on the rise, fostered especially by the fractured CME marketplace in Europe. Though generational differences present short-term obstacles to E-CME growth, the fractured state of CME support accelerates its use in educating smaller markets.

Face-to-Face CME Delivery is Most Common Delivery Mechanism, Despite Some Face-to-Face Formats Most Often Being Rated Least Effective: CME program heads must manage a "resource, targeting and quality paradox": the most highly used CME delivery forms are often the least efficient and were the lowest rated for information retention. Smart CME leaders target to reach physicians at the right time with the right CME programs.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 4

INTRODUCTION 4

RESEARCH APPROACH 5

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS 5

DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 8

REPORT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 8

KEY FINDINGS 8

Current Trends and Future Direction of CME 11

CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS IN CME GRANTS FUNDING 13

VOICES FROM THE FIELD 17

The Current Landscape of CME 19

THE NORTH AMERICAN CME LANDSCAPE 20

THE CME LANDSCAPE IN EUROPE 20

CRITICISMS OF CME FRAMEWORK 20

Current CME Structural Trends 23

DECENTRALIZED MODEL 24

CENTRALIZED MODEL 25

HUB-AND-SPOKES MODEL 27

LEVERAGING BUDGETARY RESOURCES 29

CME Evolutions Models 36

CME Functional Management 42

OPTIMIZING CME DELIVERY CHANNELS 46

BUILDING TALENT DEPTH, BREADTH AND COMPETENCE 55

MANAGING CME CONTENT 60

List of Charts & Exhibits

Table 1.1: Participating Companies, North America................................................................ 5

Table 1.2: Participating Companies, Third-party Vendors....................................................... 6

Table 1.3: Project Participants, Medical Associations and Teaching Hospitals........................ 6

Table 1.4: Benchmark Class Representatives by Title............................................................7

Figure 2.1: Voices from the Field: Why Pharma Funding is Needed...................................... 13

Figure 2.2: Opportunities Exist to Provide Grants................................................................ 14

Figure 2.3: CME Programs Get Funded Most of the Time...................................................... 15

Figure 2.4: Access to ACE Funding Will Remain Difficult........................................................16

Figure 2.5: Obtaining Grants Expected to Become Tougher.................................................16

Figure 2.6: Obstacles to Grants Funding Going Forward......................................................17

Figure 3.1: Epicenters Driving CME....................................................................................... 19

Figure 4.1: Decentralized CME Structures Proliferate........................................................... 23

Figure 4.2: Decentralized Model, Europe.............................................................................. 24

Figure 4.3: Decentralized Structure, Pros and Cons.............................................................25

Figure 4.4: Centralized Model, Europe................................................................................. 26

Figure 4.5: Centralized Structures, Pros and Cons.............................................................. 26

Figure 4.6: Hub-and-Spokes Model, Europe......................................................................... 28

Figure 4.7: Hub-and-Spokes Model, Pros and Cons............................................................. 29

Figure 5.1: CME Investment Levels Vary Between Markets..................................................30

Figure 5.2: Balance Planned & Spontaneous CME Programs............................................... 31

Figure 5.3: Voices from the Field: Generating Grants Needs Assessments.......................... 32

Figure 5.4: Use Assessments to Set Strategic Agenda........................................................ 33

Figure 5.5: Engage CME Practice Communities to Accelerate Learning................................ 35

Figure 6.1: Change Models are Being Applied to CME.......................................................... 37

Figure 6.2: Targeting CME for Ready-Changing Physicians.................................................. 38

Figure 6.3: New Formula Emerging to Optimize CME Impact................................................ 39

Figure 6.4: Improving CME Performance Impact................................................................... 41

Figure 7.1: Medical Affairs & Communications Have CME Oversight..................................... 42

Figure 7.2: North American Distribution Channels are Centrally Managed........................... 43

Figure 7.3: European CME Distribution Channels are Centrally Managed............................ 44

Figure 7.4: Medical Affairs & Grants Groups Lead North American CME................................ 45

Figure 7.5: Marketing & Medical Affairs Lead European CME................................................ 46

Figure 7.6: Face-to-Face & E-CME Dominate in North America............................................. 47

Figure 7.7: Face-to-Face Delivery is Dominant in Europe..................................................... 48

Figure 7.8: CME Delivery Channel Effectiveness vs. Use...................................................... 49

Figure 7.9: The Internet is Growing in Relevance as a Delivery Mechanism.........................50

Figure 7.10: E-CME Delivery in Europe & North America....................................................... 52

Figure 7.11: Defining Optimal Channel Mix for European Market.......................................... 53

Figure 7.12: Develop a CME Strategy to Best Manage Limited Resources........................... 55

Figure 7.13: Few People Work in CME Groups..................................................................... 56

Figure 7.14: Half of Partners Do Not Provide Training to Staff............................................. 57

Figure 7.15: CME Staff Tenure and Hiring Requirements...................................................... 58

Figure 7.16: Building CME Talent Depth Key Need in Europe............................................... 60

Figure 7.17: Most Effective European CME Services............................................................. 61

Figure 7.18: Most Effective North American CME Services.................................................... 62

Figure 7.19: Field-Based Assessments Reveal the State of Clinical Practice in the Local Market... 63

Figure 7.20: Third-Party Vendors Deliver Most European CME............................................. 64

Figure 7.21: Third-Party Vendors Dominate North American CME Delivery........................... 65