Report Library

Share this Report

Pharmaceutical CME (PH86)

Measuring Program Effectiveness in the Compliance Environment
&nsbp;
 
 

  • Pharmaceutical CME: Measure Performance, Effectiveness and ROI 

    Pharmaceutical CME departments struggle to measure performance for a number of reasons. The lack of hard measures for medical education, along with a fear of appearing non-compliant stops many companies from tracking return on investment (ROI). Many medical education departments use post-CME outcomes measures to judge the effectiveness of their investments in CME events. Unfortunately, attendance figures are the only hard measurement available from outcomes measurements — and high attendance numbers do not always translate into effective programs.

    This study presents best practices and strategies for measuring CME program effectiveness, as well as explores the recent changes that pharmaceutical CME teams have undergone since the Office of Inspector General (OIG) published its guidance document in 2003. The study is a comprehensive look at the pharmaceutical industry's strategies and support for CME in the current compliance environment.

    Pharmaceutical CME: Measuring Program Effectiveness in the Compliance Environment explores the current challenges facing continuing medical education, as well as includes trend analysis, successful strategies and best practices. The study's major focus areas include:

    CME Structure, Staffing and Spending

    Cutting Edge Information collected case studies and benchmark data to underscore CME investment trends and reorganization strategies to remain compliant with industry regulations.

    Measuring CME Effectiveness

    CME Program Strategies and Goals

    Analysts compared industry-leading strategies and outlined goals for CME departments.

    Grants Process

    Our study identifies best practices in standardizing the CME grants request process. The study also outlines changes in the process to meet with new compliance standards.

    Evaluating Program Management and Effectiveness

    The most effective CME departments in the pharmaceutical industry invest in various vehicles to deliver medical education to target physician audiences. Cutting Edge Information compiled best practices and industry trends regarding the ideal CME media mix, including live events, eCME and enduring content.

    Performance Measurement

    Our analysts took a strategic look at hard and soft measures that pharma companies use to determine return on investment and return on education.

    CME Compliance

    The study outlines top compliance challenges and presents solutions for pharmaceutical companies to operate effective CME programs in an ever-changing compliance environment.

    Back to Top

  • Companies Included in CME Effectiveness Research

    • Abbott Labs
    • Allergan
    • Altana
    • Amgen
    • Bayer
    • Baxter Healthcare
    • Bristol-Myers Squibb
    • EMD Pharmaceuticals
    • Janssen
    • Ligand Pharmaceuticals
    • MedImmune
    • Novartis
    • Novo Nordisk
    • Organon
    • Pfizer
    • Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals
    • Roche
    • Sanofi-Aventis
    • Takeda
    • TAP Pharmaceutical
    • Wyeth
    Back to Top

  • CME Effectiveness Metrics

    Chapter One

    • Figure 1.1: CME Department Organization: Centralized vs. Decentralized
    • Figure 1.2: CME Departments' Reporting Relationships
    • Figure 1.3: CME Staffing in FTEs by Company
    • Figure 1.4: Average Percentage of Dedicated Staff Time Given to Media Mix
    • Figure 1.5: CME Staffing Compared to Previous Year
    • Figure 1.6: CME Staffing Projections for Coming Year
    • Figure 1.7: Challenges to CME Program Management
    • Figure 1.8: Yearly CME Budgets at Surveyed Companies
    • Figure 1.9: Media Mix Spending: Budget Breakdown by Types of CME
    • Figure 1.10: CME Budgets Compared to Previous Year
    • Figure 1.11: CME Budget Projections for Coming Year

     

    Chapter Two

    • Figure 2.1: Breakdown of how Companies Align their CME Activities
    • Figure 2.2: Percent of CME Departments Receiving Input from Each Function
    • Figure 2.3: Top Challenges Faced by Participating Pharmaceutical CME Programs
    • Figure 2.4: Effectiveness of Companies' CME Strategies
    • Figure 2.5: Percent of Companies CME Strategy
    • Figure 2.6: Percent of Companies Supporting CME by Continent

     

    Chapter Three

    • Figure 3.1: The Post-OIG CME Grant Processing Model
    • Figure 3.2: Monthly Volume of Grant Applications Received by Selected Companies
    • Figure 3.3: Company O’s CME Grant Evaluation Process
    • Figure 3.4: Frequency of CME Department Activities/Strategic Planning Meetings
    • Figure 3.5: Top Challenges Faced by Participating Pharmaceutical CME Programs
    • Figure 3.6: Top Challenges Faced by Participating Pharmaceutical CME Programs

     

    Chapter Four

    • Figure 4.1: Number of CME Events Sponsored Compared to Last Year
    • Figure 4.2: Number of CME Events Supported by Surveyed Companies Annually
    • Figure 4.3: CME Spending Per Event at Surveyed Companies
    • Figure 4.4: Projections for Number of CME Events Sponsored in the Coming Year
    • Figure 4.5: Average Media Mix: Participation in Live vs. eCME Events
    • Figure 4.6: Media Mix As a Percentage of Company Budget
    • Figure 4.7: Media Mix as a Percentage of FTEs' Dedicated Time
    • Figure 4.8: Top Challenges Faced by Participating Pharmaceutical CME Programs

     

    Chapter Five

    • Figure 5.1: CME Soft Goal Performance Measurement Process
    • Figure 5.2: Percentage of Drug Companies that Track CME Return on Investment (ROI)
    • Figure 5.3: Companies' Self-Assessments of CME Events' Return on Investment (ROI)

     

    Chapter Six

    • Figure 6.1: Top Challenges Faced by Participating Pharmaceutical Companies
    • Figure 6.2: US Sentencing Commission Guidelines
    Back to Top

  • CME Effectiveness Report Sample

    The following is excerpted from Chapter 1, Section 3, "Supporting CME: Budget Allocation and Spending." The full report contains additional spending and staffing trends, detailed analysis of the recent CME investments and patterns, as well as current structural changes and forward-looking projections of how CME departments will invest in upcoming CME events.

    When companies have a dedicated budget or have received their budget from another function, they must decide how to allocate the money within their group.

    Companies that align their CME efforts by brand, therapeutic area or geographic region may divide their budgets equally among the groups or they allocate the funds proportionally to the size of the brands or therapeutic areas.

    By Brand

    Brand potential goes a long way in determining which products win funding for CME at some companies. The decision to allocate their budgets is based on where a product sits in the portfolio hierarchy, what the product will bring in as a function of revenue, its bottom-line sales or net profit for the year and if the company or board thinks it will be a big growth driver for the company. Products regarded as growth drivers will garner the most money and support. Product-specific strategies for medical education are mostly built into the overall lifecycle strategy as a part of commercialization.

    By Therapeutic Area

    At Company L, CME is a dedicated group but decentralized to the different therapeutic areas. Individual therapeutic area leaders get together to take a look at budget issues, and each therapeutic area leader has control over the grants that apply to their area of expertise. There is no separate grant function for general CME funds to coordinate with; therefore, the CME team is given decision-making power to determine how to utilize its $10 million budget.

    By Region

    Company C divides its $18 million budget almost equally across all its therapeutic area directors throughout the nation. The funds can be redistributed within a geographic area if necessary. Brand teams have the luxury of being able to trade money if, for example, there is a program which needs funds allocated for a specific branded product. The therapeutic area teams can have that brand's individual budget money swapped with general medical education funds to allow for CME opportunities for that brand. If a therapeutic area runs out of money to fund a particular CME event that is strategically in line with the company's goals, the company has the freedom to move money around to fund CME events that are best for the company and its brands. Company C allocates approximately $500,000 per team, funded by scientific operations budgets.

     

    The following is excerpted from Chapter 4, Section 1, "Supervising Efficient CME Program Management." The full report contains includes detailed criteria that CME events must meet before receiving funding, as well as performance measures and an analysis of pharmaceutical companies' media mix for delivering medical education.

    Pharmaceutical CME Support

    Pharmaceutical companies support a variety of CME opportunities. They sponsor live events, held at venues nationwide. These events are organized completely by CME providers who select the topics and the speakers. Often companies send representatives to attend live events, but they are not allowed to have commercial presence anywhere at the event. In addition to live events, companies sponsor eCME. This online delivery format offers easily accessible learning materials in the form of webcasts, online forums and online surveys.

    Enduring CME delivery methods benefit physicians because they are the best type of CME for the ease of referring back to the information. Companies put out enduring materials such as print and CD-ROMs because physicians appreciate the ability to bring these learning materials into their practices and refer to them when necessary. Although only a small amount of resources are dedicated to enduring CME, the materials are seen as important supplemental pieces of education for physicians.

    The majority of companies, 58.8%, increased the number of supported CME events this year as compared to last year. Another 23.5% of surveyed companies plan to sponsor a similar number of events in 2006 as in 2005.

    As the CME calendars begin to fill up for 2006, and since the influence of medical education on the industry is not waning, companies are already planning their CME efforts for the coming year. The trend favors strong support for CME in 2007 — 88.3% of companies will either maintain or increase the number of events they support.

    Back to Top

The Benefit:

Explore education challenges, measure program effectiveness and improve overall pharmaceutical CME management.

 
Tell us more
about what you need.
CLICK TO
DOWNLOAD