Web sites forming CME partnerships

Medical Web sites explore alliances with specialty societies to expand CME offerings, but some societies are rebuffing collaborative offers -- for now.

By Jay Greene, amednews staff. Dec. 18, 2000.

Last year's controversy is this year's latest continuing medical education trend as Internet medical Web site companies and medical specialty societies reach partnership agreements for providing CME online.

The controversy arose after Medscape, one of the largest online medical sites, sent several physician CME authors to cover the 1999 annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The plan was to gather information, write pediatric CME courses with quizzes at the end, partner with a commercial CME provider and post the courses for credit on its Web site (http://www.medscape.com/).

The problem was that Medscape didn't have permission from AAP. While CME experts say no copyright laws or accreditation rules were violated, traditional boundaries that govern CME conferences were breached.

"One of the online Web portals [Medscape] abstracted CME presented at the academy's annual meeting. We called them on it and voiced our displeasure. We didn't authorize it," said Robert Perelman, MD, AAP's director of education.

Medscape officials have revised their approach. "What we are trying to do now is make every effort to work in advance with the specialty societies," said Bill Silberg, Medscape's vice president and executive editor. "If you are making an enemy of the societies, it will not work out in the long run. These groups and members are our bread and butter. [Partnering] is a natural extension of what we do."

Over the past two years, online medical Web sites such as Medscape, WebMD and a dozen other smaller firms have been partnering with medical schools, specialty societies and other CME providers to gain prestige, market share and respect from physicians, said Gerald Strauch, MD, director of CME for the American College of Surgeons.

"We have been approached by a whole bunch of online companies," Dr. Strauch said. "I don't feel these relationships are intrinsically bad. It is just this is a whole new arena, and people need to understand all the implications. If we did get into a joint venture, there would have to be no breaching of the college's reputation."

Dr. Perelman said the AAP also had declined offers from Medscape and other online Web sites. "We are going in the other direction," he said.

Last month, AAP unveiled PediaLink, an online CME and lifelong learning Web site (http://www.pedialink.org/). "We want to give pediatricians one site where they can get their CME and lifelong education," he added.

Based on complaints from specialty societies, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education reviewed several examples of online Web sites offering CME courses that originated at annual meetings, said Murray Kopelow, MD, ACCME's executive director.

"We haven't heard of anybody stealing material and putting it on their Web site," he said. "We investigated several and found there were joint sponsorship arrangements between the Web site and the ACCME provider. Several societies collaborate with Web sites to add educational exposure. It is very constructive."

Offering CME courses is part of Medscape's coverage of major medical professional meetings, Silberg said. Unlike some CME providers, Medscape does not charge physicians for CME credit. It derives income from grants from commercial sponsors, generally pharmaceutical companies.

"This is an area of transition," Silberg said. "We are trying to figure this out together so that everyone benefits. We are trying to be profitable but also uphold quality."

Medscape has contracted with several specialty groups to jointly develop online CME courses.

"We have introduced a new revenue-sharing model that many are finding quite attractive," said Judy Ribble, PhD, Medscape CME director. With 159 CME activities, Medscape contracts with 50 accredited CME providers, 18 of whom are commercial CME organizations, she said.