Who pays for your doctor's continuing education
Drug and device makers gave $841.9 million to accredited medical education in 2025. Eighty percent of it went to for-profit education companies, not medical schools.
We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: Two pairings are mandatory. On the evidence: educational meetings do change practice at moderate certainty (Cochrane CD003030.pub3, 2021, 215 studies), and physician-industry interaction is associated with prescribing (Brax, PLoS One 2017, pooled OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.82-3.50, moderate quality) - but only TWO studies in that review examined industry-funded CME specifically, one at high risk of bias, published 1988 and 1992, neither measuring clinical outcomes; the most-cited (Orlowski, Chest 1992) measured prescribing after physicians were flown on "all-expenses-paid trips to popular sunbelt vacation sites", conduct Standard 4.1.c now prohibits. On the accreditor: the review most often quoted for "no evidence of bias" (Cervero and Gaines 2014) was commissioned and funded by the ACCME, as its own cover states, and its finding is symmetrical - no data-based article supports OR refutes the assertion. The register is disclosure, never accusation: you should know who pays.
American doctors must keep learning to stay licensed, and in 2025 drug and device makers paid $841.9 million toward it. That is commercial support - money from companies that sell healthcare products.
The industry share has fallen by half, and any honest account leads with that. It was about 49% of reported income in 2005. In 2025 it was 10.4%, among the providers trackable across both years.
But the money did not leave. It concentrated.
Significant findings
Of the $841.9 million, $673.5 million - 80% - went to 229 for-profit publishing and education companies. Schools of medicine received $65.5 million, under 8%.
The common version of this story, that drug companies fund medical schools' teaching, is close to backwards.
Worth asking
None of this is about your own doctor. Doctors report perceiving bias in only about 3% of accredited activities, the same rate whether or not the course was commercially supported.
The useful move is a question, not a suspicion. When a recommendation is new, brand-name or expensive, ask what the alternatives are, including older generics. Then ask how many people out of 100 it actually helps.
Source
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice — Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice; Lo B, Field MJ, editors (2009)
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.17226/12598
DOI: 10.17226/12598
How this was scored
- Study design
- not recorded
- Funding
- not recorded
- Published in
- not recorded
- Sample size
- not recorded
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
We have not finished checking this source, so there is no scoring to show yet. “We have not checked this yet” and “this is disputed” are different statements, so no scored band is shown rather than a low one.
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published August 31, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
Resolv rates this source "not yet assessed". We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. One caveat travels with that badge: Two pairings are mandatory. On the evidence: educational meetings do change practice at moderate certainty (Cochrane CD003030.pub3, 2021, 215 studies), and physician-industry interaction is associated with prescribing (Brax, PLoS One 2017, pooled OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.82-3.50, moderate quality) - but only TWO studies in that review examined industry-funded CME specifically, one at high risk of bias, published 1988 and 1992, neither measuring clinical outcomes; the most-cited (Orlowski, Chest 1992) measured prescribing after physicians were flown on "all-expenses-paid trips to popular sunbelt vacation sites", conduct Standard 4.1.c now prohibits. On the accreditor: the review most often quoted for "no evidence of bias" (Cervero and Gaines 2014) was commissioned and funded by the ACCME, as its own cover states, and its finding is symmetrical - no data-based article supports OR refutes the assertion. The register is disclosure, never accusation: you should know who pays. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice — Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice; Lo B, Field MJ, editors (2009). DOI: 10.17226/12598. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.