A question of funding

This week GSK announced a move to restrict funding for CME programmes to academically-led centres. But does this really demonstrate commitment to patient health, or are they merely playing lip service to industry critics?

Personally I question whether this decision will serve to actually improve the quality of education, rather it might have the opposite effect - reducing competition and minimising choice for healthcare professionals.

The official statement from GSK outlines plans to "continue funding those with the greatest potential to improve patient health". But how will this be evaluated, and will this mean that rarer conditions affecting fewer people are no longer worthy of improvements in standards?

Any efforts to really improve the reputation of the industry should be welcomed, but only when well founded and based on sound evidence. Are these self-imposed restrictions really the best for patients and healthcare professionals now and in the future?