Bob,

This looks great.  I hope to see you in SF in October, at least for the main meeting.  (I've been twice before and thought it was outstanding).

For some of us the registration fee will be an issue.  How does pharmaceutical industry support affect the fees (for the main course in particular)?

If the AMA passes the proposed ban on industry funding for CME events how will that affect the future of this meeting?

Thanks.

Glad you've enjoyed the past courses. Hope to see you there this year.

Believe it or not, even very successful courses like mine barely break even without exhibitors, even with not-inexpensive registration fees like ours (which are in the mid-range of typical fees for 2.5 day CME courses -- the "Mini-College" is pricier because of the absence of exhibitors, the high faculty-to-attendee ratio, and some of the additional costs such as credentialing and shuttles).

Personally, I think that allowing companies to exhibit, and thereby to help support courses like mine, is no more sinister than allowing ads in medical journals. The exhibitors are paying for space and access to "eyeballs," but they have absolutely no influence on content or speakers -- I plan and publish the program well before the first exhibitor is lined up. Given the hospitalist field's dynamic, our exhibitors turn out to be an eclectic mix of pharma, some IT companies (handhelds, billing, other innovative technologies), publishers, national/regional hospitalist companies, and hospitals and healthcare systems trying to recruit hospitalists. It is a pretty diversified portfolio.

If industry engagement in CME was banned, I think it would spell the end of CME courses like mine. Registration fees would go up by 25-50%, and folks would likely choose to obtain their CME credits on-line. When I see the wonderful networking that happens at our conference, I think that would be a big loss.

That said, I am well aware that others (including many people I greatly respect) differ on this, and I can't deny that I am conflicted.

Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful reply to my question above.  Conflicted or not I believe your course content is clean.  I hope the present day McCarthyism over industry support does not result in the demise of your course and others like it.

R. W. Donnell

Having attended the previous 11 I have always found the course content outstanding. I agree with the cost issue and hope that it will continue to be in a good price range for all hospitalists to attend. Look forward to the 12th.

This is a fascinating concept, and one that offers many opportunities for hands-on learning opportunities.  The UCSF radiology program used to offer opportunities for practicing radiologists to spend a 1 week "sabbatical" with the academic group, sitting in on the reading room and other conferences.  This sounds similar in ways.

Couple of questions:

1)  Will participants be able to touch live patients, or sit/stand in on patient rounds?  or do licensing, malpractice, and HIPPA issues prevent this option for anyone who is not already UCSF adjunct clinical faculty?

2) If the above issues can be resolved, do you see a future creating "life-long learning opportunities" where practicing office-based clinicians actively participate on hospitalist rounds to maintain some inpatient expertise (and hospital privileges.)

In pediatrics, it is particularly valuable to provide hands-on inpatient lifelong learning opportunities.  Rural communities simply lack the volume to support pediatric hospitalists, and pediatricians practicing in these areas need to maintain inpatient, ER, and neonatal skills in addition to outpatient skills.  This may be less of an issue in the adult population where almost any hospital is going to have sufficient volume to support a hospital medicine program.

And, in a compmlementary fashion, there is probably value for hospitalists to spend a day working in the office to get a reminder of what things are like on the other side of the hospital fence.

Jack Percelay

SHM Pediatric Board Member

Yes, Jack, we partly modeled this on the UCSF radiology program; our AIDS program has also done something like this in the past. As I understand the credentialing (thanks to Dr. Vidyarthi for helping me out on this), attendees will officially be credentialed by UCSF as "Visiting Scholars," which will allow them to participate as "observers." (They'll also have to sign HIPAA forms.) This status should allow them to examine patients and observe care, but not to directly provide care. In other words, they won't be in a position to discuss their diagnostic formulation with the patient.

We hadn't thought about the option you discussed in #2, but I guess it is possible. First, we need to see whether there is a demand for this kind of thing -- I hope so.