About Us

Welcome to Pri-Med

Pri-Med is a trusted communication and education platform for science and medicine that is owned by M|C Communications LLC. The Pri-Med brand represents a community of healthcare providers and their need to access the latest information and education through a network of meetings, resources, online, and new media tools. Pri-Med collaborates with leading institutions and distributes content developed by others through these channels.

In order to help our community deliver quality patient care, Pri-Med presents opportunities to engage their peers, expert faculty, and content across innovative live and new media delivery formats. Pri-Med partners with leading associations, academic medical centers, and education partners to bring content to the Pri-Med community of healthcare professionals to enable them to address patient needs.

Company

Read the summary of the “MA Gift Ban,” the MA Dept. of Public Health’s final regulations relative to the PhRMA and Medical Device Code of Conduct. Learn what the regulations mean, who they impact, and when they go into effect.   Summary of MA Healthcare Reform Legislation 

M|C Communications Statement of Funding

CME Effectiveness Research These tools demonstrate how CME and the advancements in education are having a positive impact on healthcare practice and outcomes of care for patients.

Understanding Physician Learning Needs, January 2008

Building Educational Curricula to Maximize Outcomes, January 2008

Physician Perception of Bias, May 2008

Innovative Methods in Measuring Outcomes, January 2009

For Industry

For information on opportunities within Pri-Med's multi-channel educational platforms including Pri-Med Conference & Exhibitions, Pri-Med Access with ACP and Pri-Med.com visit www. pri-med.com/industry 

For more information on our site policies, please reference our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

The Pri-Med brand also serves clinicians globally through its international branches and partners. Through Pri-Med educational solutions, clinicians worldwide are empowered to make informed decisions with greater confidence and stay on top of the latest clinical developments today and every day.

In-country resources including local staff and offices in each nation and partnerships with state and national healthcare partners allow Pri-Med to serve the distinct learning needs and preferences of clinicians globally.

Pri-Med’s offerings include 120+ live meetings and conventions across the U.S., in the UK, and Germany; 300+ online CME activities and web-based tools and resources on www.pri-med.com, one of the top ten CME websites available to physicians; and 60+ print publications read by 200,000+ clinicians.

For more information send an email to media@pri-med.com.

You will need the free Adobe® Acrobat® reader to view these publications. Download the reader by clicking on the logo.

For more information send an email to media@pri-med.com.

You will need the free Adobe® Acrobat® reader to view these publications. Download the reader by clicking on the logo.

KNOWLEDGE IS OUR PRIORITY

Every year, the Pri-Med Physician Insights team speaks with over 60,000 healthcare providers to keep a finger on the pulse of the ever-changing healthcare landscape and build programs that effectively deliver the highest quality educational content practitioners need in their daily practice.

The Pri-Med Physician Insights team conducts regular research initiatives aimed at understanding physician attitudes and behaviors and how physicians are impacted by trends in healthcare – information that is of interest to the national press, healthcare organizations, industry executives, and physicians curious about where their peers stand on key primary care issues.

Below please find our most recent insights. We recommend that you bookmark this page and visit often.  We will continually update it to deliver the voice of the physician.

_______________________________________________________________

Poll Results: 88% of clinicians believe the U.S. healthcare system needs either a substantial system-wide overhaul or major changes in key areas. No clinicians considered the "status quo" acceptable.

June 19, 2009

Top Line:

• 88% of clinicians polled believe the U.S. healthcare system needs either a substantial system-wide overhaul or major changes in key areas
• 62% of clinicians believe individuals (i.e. patients) will benefit from health care reform, but nearly as many believe enacted reform will prove detrimental to themselves

Clinicians select their top most important healthcare outcomes

• 42% assure health care coverage for all individuals
• 34% promote prevention and wellness behaviors and programs
• 32% promote medical malpractice reform

View the full report http://bit.ly/jsaSQ

Where do you want to see change happen? Join the discussion on Facebook.

Physicians Speak Out about Primary Care Challenges Today

December 15, 2008

As reported on CNN.com, the article, “Half of primary-care doctors in survey would leave medicine,” noted that a survey released by the Physicians' Foundation revealed that nearly half of the respondents, US primary care physicians, said they would seriously consider leaving medicine within the next years if they had an alternative.  The CNN.com article also covered the American Medical Association’s annual meeting at which they predicted a shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025.

At Pri-Med, we believe that primary care medicine is critical to the health and well-being of our population.  We regularly seek to understand some of the challenges physicians are facing in their professional careers. On Tuesday, December 9, we polled 89,652 Pri-Med members to hear their perspectives.  We had an overwhelming response rate given the charged issue of the future of medicine vs. the personal calling to medicine.

The common themes you share are focused in three areas:

1. Reimbursement challenges
2. Regulation, Government and Insurance control
3. Poor compensation

Reimbursement Challenges

• “Stricter maintenance of licensure regulation coupled with dwindling reimbursements and higher cost of practicing make it impossible to continue.”
• “Primary care has had increasing demands and decreasing reimbursements. Unless a healthcare reform is implemented, the shortage will be felt prior to 2025.”
• “Medicare reimbursement, lack of tort reform, increasing malpractice rates, infighting between specialties. You pick.”

Regulation, Government, and Insurance Control

• “Too much regulation from the government, operating cost goes up but reimbursement goes down.”
• “I have already quit. Too little money, too much time, too much paperwork, too many insurance hassles, too many people don't have insurance and the office has to make a lot of phone calls with no reimbursement for our time. I volunteer at a free clinic.”
• “After 10 years I am tired and resentful and angry that physicians are no longer valued. I want the middleman the insurance company out of medicine. Doctors save lives, insurance companies save money--they take the patients and the doctors’ fair reimbursements. The crisis is worsening and lives shall be lost due to insurance company greed.”

Poor Compensation

• “Not fair compensation for PCP compared to other specialties.”
• “You can't keep lowering pay and increasing work and expect people to stay in the field. I just ‘retired’ at 36 because I can make more and work less teaching high school.”
• “PCPs are working too hard, facing too many paper works, not paid well enough and is extremely unfair for us. If I can choose again, I would have not chosen primary care. It's too late to change now. I will not tell people to do primary care if possible.”

Despite this, you are committed to your field and to your patients. At Pri-Med we put the physician first and we hope that through our education you are able to rekindle the passion for patient care and the drive for learning that brought you into your role.

Positive Comments

• “I am thankful for the job security.  The effects of ‘physician shortage’ can be mitigated by compensating primary care physicians better and making rural practice more attractive.”
• “I recommend that doctors receive tax credits for seeing patients off regular hours at free medical clinics to provide care to the un-insured and unemployed.”
• “After 24 years, I still love the discovery and helping others but the rewards are few.”
•  “The most honorable and satisfying profession in spite of govt. and legal entanglements.”
• “Don’t lose sight of the fact that giving care to our fellow human beings is our highest calling---no insurance company or administrator will ever fully understand that.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pri-Med Commitment to CME - The Value and the Market Need

August 19, 2008

As many of you know, Pri-Med reaches out to physicians and faculty requesting feedback on various hot topics in the industry.  Most recently, we opened up a discussion about the value of CME.

Within that discussion, Pri-Med made it clear that we have and will continue to make major commitments and investments in the area of industry supported CME.  We believe a healthy dialog, careful management, and collaboration between all constituents can provide a fair, balanced, and stronger CME solution to positively impact patient care. 

Recently, we received feedback from a number of health care professionals regarding industry support for CME and the topic of conflict of interest.  Pri-Med’s views were shared in the form of an open letter to the health care community, sparked by Pfizer’s grand funding decision, posted on www.pri-med.com, and now is located here. 

We always welcome your thoughts and comments.  Please feel free to join the dialog by emailing us at telltheceo@pri-med.com.  Here are most of the responses we already received:

• I have sent emails previously to you (Marissa) and the "Coalition" in support of Pri-Med's position on industry conflict of interest.  As both a speaker for, and attendee of numerous Pri-Med conferences, I can personally attest to efforts made to minimize potential bias, and would be happy to have this letter shared or my name added to a petition in order to keep these programs funded. Physician     
• I cannot stress enough how essential Pri-med CME courses, online and live, have been to me.  It helps me to stay current with the latest advancements and developments in diagnosis, treatment, and management to improve patient care.  I need more CME courses, live and online, in the future.  Thank you.  Nurse Practitioner
• It is very regrettable Pfizer's decision and statement against CME's funding.  We deeply appreciate all knowledge of the newest advances and understandings of the science of diseases and managements that you provide us and we apply to the benefit of our patients. These events for Doctors are very much needed to keep us better informed and updated. Thank you very much for all your efforts. Physician
• It is a nice letter but it misses the following points: (1) Pfizer has no obligation to be fair; (2) Pfizer's message has both an internal and external target audience with far more at stake internally than externally; (3) limiting who receives grants is possibly a political and logistical "survivor mode" tactic; and (4) collaboration is key for us all. Physician, Faculty
• Thanks for sending me the Pri-Med statement critiquing Pfizer's unbelievable position on MECCs. CME Consulting Firm
• The position statement is very well done and the physician poll adds evidence to support your position. Pharmaceutical Company
• I oppose their lack of support for on going medical education. Physician
• Congratulations on the excellent letter posted on your site. It is an eloquent statement of the issues and a most reasoned and intelligent response.  I only hope that Pfizer and the ACCME are able to understand these issues and formulate their responses based on the reality of the issues and not the “perceptions” of those who are critical of the medical education vertical. CME Provider 
• I certainly agree with the tone and content of the well-though comments of Mr. Connolly and Marissa on the Primed website.  Obviously the issue of commercial support of CME is quite complicated and nuanced.
• In general, I certainly do agree that the jeopardize support of CME by pharmaceutical companies and others with vested interest in medical decision-making raises potential for conflict of interest or perhaps equally as importantly the perception of conflict of interest.
• Certainly, not every provider is as dogged in their management of these potential conflicts of interest as Primed, and the proliferation of MECC’s, many of whose relationships to commercial supporters is not always as transparent as it could be, has cast some doubts on the integrity of the process on the part of some learners.  However, these facts in no way detract from the tremendous value of CME in disseminating much needed clinical updates for learners, particularly community-based, primary care practitioners, who may not be in a position to fund their CME/CE efforts on their own. Physician – University Professor
• Thanks for writing the letter. Appreciate the support and Pri-Med’s willingness to be up front with their position. CME Provider
• Position well expressed. Found the results of your survey very interesting but also wondered whether your target group was representative of all doc's. Physician – University Professor
• Thank you so much for your letter. Every item was exactly right. CME Provider

_______________________________________________________________

Physicians updating their approach to diabetic patient care after CME sessions

July 28, 2008

Two-thirds of physicians who participated in Pri-Med’s Diabetes in Depth CME programs say they recently implemented management strategies that improve patient health outcomes as a result of the education, according to a post-session survey.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and Pri-Med collaborated to offer Diabetes in Depth, a one-day CME program focused on clinically relevant practice and patient care issues in diabetes diagnosis.  The intensive program is comprised of three workshops and five sessions and will be held in a total of 10 cites nationwide this year.  More than 1,370 physicians attended meetings this Spring in Baltimore, Boston, Jacksonville, and Dallas. We expect thousands more to be educated in 2008 through ADA/Pri-Med live programs and online activities.  Learn more about Pri-Med/ADA CME.

Physicians utilizing information to make proactive clinical changes:

Pri-Med surveyed physicians who attended the first four programs before they participated in the activity and then again after it, to determine how the education impacted their practice and patient care approach.  Here are the preliminary outcomes findings.  

The ADA/Pri-Med diabetes education is boosting or reinforcing practitioners’ adherence to a number of clinical standards. 

• 86% of physicians, after education, said they annually screen urine albumin in all T2DM patients; an increase of 9% from the 79% pre-education baseline.
• 47% of physicians, after education, said they prescribe a statin medication to diabetic patients who have obesity; an increase of 18% from the 40% pre-education baseline.
• 46% of physicians, after education, said they prescribe a statin medication to diabetic patients who smoke; an increase of 35% from the 34% pre-education baseline.

Post-educational data indicate more clinicians are ordering key laboratory assessments for diabetic patients.

• 100% of physicians, after education, said they measure diabetic patients’ blood pressure at every visit, an increase of 6% from the 94% pre-education baseline.
• 93% of physicians, after education, said they refer diabetic patients for dilated eye examinations annually; an increase of 9% from the 85% pre-education baseline.
• 68% of physicians, after education, said they perform an FPG test at every visit and 44% of physicians, after education, said they perform an A1C test at every visit; an increase of 19% and 20% respectively.

Stay tuned for more results.  Additional impact measures on patient health outcomes are in the field including a HIPPA compliant analysis of patient records assessed through an electronic medical record (EMR) database, as well as patient surveys

_______________________________________________________________

Poll:  86% of Clinicians Oppose Pfizer’s Action to End Direct Support to Medical Education and Communication Companies

July 10, 2008

The vast majority of clinicians don’t feel changes are needed to how CME is funded by industry, according a poll conducted this week by Pri-Med.  Pri-Med conducted a poll among its members to find out what clinicians think about a recent action by Pfizer’s medical education grants department to no longer award grants for CME initiatives developed by medical education and communication companies (MECCs). One hundred and ninety two clinicians voluntarily responded to the three part poll within 24 hours.  When asked, “Do you favor or oppose the decision”, 86% of clinicians said they oppose Pfizer’s decision to not directly fund CME developed by providers like Pri-Med.  Another 73% do not agree that conflicts of interest in CME would be addressed as a result of the change. 

In an open ended response section of the poll, clinicians provided a variety of personal reasons as to why they either opposed or agreed with Pfizer’s action. The majority of those who provided comments opposed Pfizer’s action and felt strongly about the value of CME to their practice and the need for support to continue.  Some felt that Pfizer made a business decision in an effort to reduce expenses to their organization.  Below is a sample of the 31 comments provided in opposition:

• “We need all the help we can get for any hope of staying current in the CME world” 
• “I am disappointed.  I am not aware of other organizations that have the resources, track record, and expertise in providing exceptional education services/opportunities” 
• “Essential CME will be more costly to the physicians,” 
• “We are educated professionals and the sponsorship of the drug company will not cause the inappropriate use of their drug.  We do what is best for the patient.” 
• “I believe they are only trying to cut costs, although this is not a wise method,”   

While only a small minority of respondents provided comments in favor of the change, it’s important to give all sides a voice.  Those four who were in agreement and commented expressed overall concern with commercial organizations funding CME.  At the same time, most said they are not in a position to pay for it on their own.   

• “This is an ongoing issue…on the other hand who is going to pay for CME…especially for primary care doctors who remain on the low end of the pay scale.” 
• “This measure goes part of the way to eliminating bias – but the definite step would be to eliminate drug company sponsorship altogether.  Speaking as a physician who cannot afford CME unless it is drug sponsored, this simply will not happen.” 

While there have been movements to change how CME is funded by industry it is clear from this and other research that the overwhelming majority of physicians appreciate industry support of CME.  However, a small percentage of physicians are uneasy about its role in CME.  Pri-Med believes their concerns can be addressed through greater transparency in how CME is planned and conducted and a continued commitment to providing non bias superior content quality.  Review Pri-Med Institute’s Ethical Guidelines for Collaboration with Educational Partners.

_______________________________________________________

Pri-Med Perspective – NYT, “Doctors Miss Cultural Needs Study Says”

June 25, 2008

We are sure many of you read the June 10, New York Times article, “Doctors Miss Cultural Needs Study Says.” The article was prompted by the study, which was recently published in The Archives of Internal Medicine, “Physician Performance and Racial Disparities in Diabetes Mellitus Care.” 

In that study, electronic medical records of 6,814 patients with diabetes were examined. The study concluded, “Racial differences in outcomes were not related to black patients differentially receiving care from physicians who provide a lower quality of care, but rather that black patients experienced less ideal or even adequate outcomes than white patients within the same physician panel.”

According to the authors, “Our data suggest that the problem of racial disparities is not characterized by only a few physicians providing markedly unequal care that such differences in care are spread across the entire system, requiring the implementation of systemwide solutions.”

The authors of the article recommend that there needs to be more learning about minority communities so that doctors, other members of the health care system, and patients are better educated about diabetes.

Pri-Med research demonstrates that education focusing on handling special populations is effective.  Pri-Med follow-up research from our nationwide education sessions in 2007 with 6,006 clinician participants, clinician competence regarding assessment of cardiovascular risk among special populations increased to 48 percent. 

Also, 92 percent of clinicians feel it’s important to learn how to treat diverse populations, specifically the diagnosis and treatment of diseases that differ in prevalence and severity among various ethnic groups/patient populations.

Pri-Med is proud to offer education on special populations.  Several of our Diabetes in Depth Live CME programs offer a Workshop on the Assessment of Special Populations and Risks.  To see if there is a program in your area, visit the Live CME section of Pri-Med.com.