Do’s and Don’ts of Getting Pharma Grants for CME

MeetingsNet article by Sue Pelletier explains what three pharmaceutical company grants specialists say that CME providers should - and should not - do to win a grant. 

---

Do’s and Don’ts of Getting Pharma Grants for CME

Many continuing medical education providers rely on grants from pharma companies to create meaningful activities, but getting those grants is not always easy. And companies almost never are willing or able to tell why a specific grant does or does not get the green light.

So when three pharmaceutical company grants specialists took to the stage at medical education company special interest group session at the Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions’ annual meeting in January, they had the crowd’s full attention. What can CME providers do to help land those grants, and what are they doing that may be squelching their grant approval chances? Here are some of the best, and worst, practices they said they regularly encounter.

Best Grants Practices
​
The grantors represented companies that use both an open grants model, where anyone can apply for any grant the company is offering, and a closed model, where only CME providers who have been through an approval process are eligible to apply for grants. Regardless of their company’s model, they all agreed that these are some of the things they look for in a request.

1. Use plain English. Find simple ways to describe what you plan to do. It’s easy for CME providers to use a lot of jargon in their proposals, but some of the other teams that review the grant may not be familiar with medical education and adult learning principles, so put it in plain English. Explain why the format you’ve chosen is the right one for your educational objectives. “Tell me not just what and who, but explain the knowledge gap at hand, and why you’ve chosen to address it in that way.”

2. Be brief. Provide a concise summary of the proposal up front that includes learning objectives and the target audience. “A one-page overview is a beautiful thing,” said one of the grantors.

3. Don’t just rehash an old proposal. They emphasized that it’s “abundantly obvious when you just dust off something you picked from the shelf.”

4. Describe the gap. If it’s not possible to include a full literature review in your gap analysis, or even if it is, it’s also a good idea to include other feedback—including results from other programs that indicate the gaps experienced by the community you’re trying to reach.

5. Stick with what you know. Different CME providers have different skill sets. As one of the panelists said, “Perhaps I said in the call for proposals that primary care physicians were the prime audience, but if you find another population that needs [the education] too, partner with someone who owns that. Don’t try to own everything.” Another added, “Stick to doing what you do best, leverage that. Why do you resonate with a particular audience? Sometimes reaching 50,000 people isn’t helpful, and you’d be better off reaching the right 500 people.”

6. Explain “Plan B.” If you submit a proposal for a CME activity that will be supported by grants from multiple pharma companies, include how you would proceed if you can’t secure the full level of funding you need. You don’t need to go into elaborate detail, they said, but do indicate what you would do if, say, only one out of the three companies accept your request.

Different companies handle changes in scope differently, so if you do need to scale back because you failed to nail down the multiple supporters your initial plan required, check to see what the procedure is for the other company you’re applying to. At some companies, the changes will have to go back to the grant committee before a decision can be made on whether the grant will move forward. In others, it will just need to be reviewed by the grants manager. “We’d want to see how creative you could be with the funding you did receive,” offered one of the panelists.
​
And whatever you do, don’t hold off on letting the company know that you’ll have to fall back on your Plan B or Plan C. “If there needs to be a change in scope due to not being able to obtain the level of support initially proposed from multiple supporters,” said one, “communicate the changes with the grantor as soon as possible.”

4 Things Not to Do

While doing the opposite of any of the above points is an obvious negative, here are a few more things to be on guard about:

1. Include errors, especially scientific errors. “The medical directors who review will catch those,” said one panelist. “Don’t think you can fool them with fuzzy science.”

2. Fail to double-check. Make sure the details are correct. “It’s hard to take a proposal seriously when it’s not addressed to our company,” said one panelist. “Check those cut-and-pastes!”

3. Submit cookie-cutter proposals. “If I see a bunch of grants that outline almost the exact same proposal submitted within five days, it’s hard to take it seriously,” said a panelist. “It looks like you’re throwing things at the wall to see what will stick.”

4. Just forward a partner’s outcomes report. It’s important to let the grantor know what you think of the results as well, they said.

After Income Comes Outcomes

Securing the grant is one thing, but making them glad to have supported a CME activity can be something else. The panelists offered this tips on providing outcomes that will make them more likely to welcome your next grant request.

1. Be easy to work with. Ask how your recipients prefer to receive outcomes reporting. One panelist said it’s easier to transfer PowerPoint files than Word or PDFs. The grants department has to translate those files to other departments, and PowerPoint is just easier to transfer, said the panelist.

2. Outcomes equals impact. Make sure that the outcomes data is meaningful—it must speak to the impact of the education. The level of reporting will vary, of course, from a simple grand-rounds activity to a large, multi-year program, but generally speaking, include whether you hit your target audience. If you did not, acknowledge the fact and explain what you learned from it. As one panelist said, “It doesn’t have to all be rosy. We understand that it doesn’t always go off without a hitch. We want the outcomes to match what you spelled out in the proposal. Did any learning take place? What impact did it have? What did you learn from it? Did you uncover any new gaps?” Another added, “We want to know what you learned from less-than-stellar outcomes.”

And be honest about it: “Our scientists will figure out if you’re trying to fudge the data,” one warned.

3. Anecdotes welcome. Include both objective and subjective data in your outcomes reporting. “It’s good to have both. The stories also are important to know,” said one. Anecdotal information is welcome, as are audience Q&As, which supporters often don’t get to see. “Our medical affairs colleagues find that fascinating. Does it match with our research? That’s more informative to us than a list of speaker evaluations.”