Regulatory Atmosphere: Good News, Bad News

There is some good news for health care tradeshow managers and exhibitors to reflect on as they gather June 13-16 in Tampa, Fla., for the Healthcare Convention & Exhibitors Assn. Annual Meeting and Exhibition: After nearly a year of consideration, the American Medical Assn.'s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs decided not to recommend the AMA come down hard on groups that accept money from the for-profit sector for continuing medical education.

The council's report noted that, while it was “ethically preferable” that CME providers – including those that stage annual medical specialty meetings – accept no money from companies that do business with their members, there are activities the council finds “ethically permissible.”

The AMA's full House of Delegates will meet in Chicago to consider the recommendation at just about the same time HCEA will hold its meeting in Tampa.

However, most observers think the full AMA body will go along, particularly since last year it rejected a much more stringent recommendation from the council and ordered it back to the drawing board.

Mix in the decision in March, by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, which regulates many medical show conference tracks, that it will take absolutely no action to ban commercial support at meetings, and one would think all was right again in the health care tradeshow world.

Still, there have been substantial changes – or at least potential precursors to change – since the health care sector of the tradeshow industry held its annual meeting last June in Salt Lake City.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's revision of its PhRMA Code that was announced in July went into effect in January, banning the distribution of non-educational items such as pens, mugs and other kinds of gifts that do not have any ultimate value to patients. At the same time, the guidelines restrict pharmaceutical sales representatives from providing restaurant meals to health care professionals.

Many health care show managers who held their events in the first part of this year told Tradeshow Week the revisions had little impact on their shows because their own ethics guidelines already were fairly strict.

Other high-profile decisions about tradeshow activities ultimately could have an impact though on how pharmaceutical and, eventually, medical device manufacturers market their products to health care professionals.

While exhibitors at the American College of Cardiology's ACC Annual Scientific Session March 29-31 in Orlando might have had their own struggles with PhRMA Code revisions, the show itself went one step further by ceasing the use of sponsorships to pay for lanyards and tote bags.

ACC CEO Dr. Jack Lewin said it cost the cardiologists' group about $500,000 to do so, but it was worth it.

“We did this to avoid … attendees as walking billboards and to visually reaffirm our commitment to responsibility and transparency within the industry,” Lewin added.

The American Psychiatric Assn. began a similar phasing out of industry support for conference programs at its American Psychiatric Assn. Annual Meeting & Exhibits May 16-21 in San Francisco.

Dr. Deborah Hales, education director for the APA, said “there is no official timeline” for eliminating financial support from pharmaceutical makers, but, this year, “there will be fewer sessions than in previous years,” and “they will cease to be offered within several years.”

Moves like those made by the cardiologists' and psychiatrists' groups are in line with recommendations in a highly publicized “special communication” in the April 1 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Assn. in which a group of co-authors, including JAMA Editor-in-Chief Catherine DeAngelis, called for all professional medical associations “to work toward a goal of accepting $0 contributions from industry.”

The authors said they had no problem with the traditional exhibit hall, but they believed it should be far from any scientific or educational conference that might be associated with it.

Nevertheless, any long-term changes to the financial equation professional health care organizations use to fund the services they provide their members – including CME – could have serious implications.

“The model (for health care events) would drastically change if the recommendations like those in JAMA actually were adopted,” said HCEA Executive Vice President Eric Allen.

If the groups were to adopt JAMA's recommendations, Allen added, “The whole revenue model many of these societies are based on would have to change.”

Whether they will change remains an open question, with many show managers waiting to see what industry sponsors, who have provided financial support in the past, will do – and vice versa.

Traci Browne, president of Red Cedar Publicity & Marketing, which specializes in marketing consulting for the health care industry, said of show managers, “They're just pretending it's not happening.”

Of pharmaceutical firms, she added, “A lot of people are pulling out of exhibiting or cutting back tremendously.”

Joseph McMillian, principle partner of Heartland Compliance Services and a longtime compliance officer with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said economic conditions may play a bigger role in dictating the future of health care marketing than the regulatory atmosphere.

He added increased interest in health care regulations comes in cycles.

“Every 10 years or so, the pharma companies rediscover the issue,” McMillian said. “They're getting pressure now from the financial environment, not just from regulations.”