Synapse Forum is built so the sponsor never runs the room.

Non-promotional by design. The discussion is independent education under an unrestricted grant and the survey is market research. If you want a promotional asset, that is a different product with your normal MLR review and Form FDA 2253 process, and we keep it fully separate.

The discussion is not your promotional material and is produced outside your control, so it is not a standard MLR piece. We still recommend your medical and compliance teams review for accuracy, adverse events, and off-label safeguards within the firewall scope. We send an MLR-ready package with annotated references so that review is fast.

The OIG’s November 2020 alert targets programs where the company controls content, picks high-prescriber speakers, pays above market, and uses the room to induce prescribing. We invert every one of those: no content control, disease-level scope, fair-market rates set in advance, expertise-based selection, and anonymized research.

Named discussion faculty: yes, you report those transfers of value, and we supply a data feed with name, NPI, license state, address, amount, and nature. Blinded survey respondents: generally no, because you never learn who they are, which is the condition for the indirect-payment exclusion under 42 CFR 403.904 and for aggregate disclosure under EFPIA.

You can flag factual errors, adverse events, and your own IP before publication. You cannot edit opinions, choose faculty, or veto anyone. That limit is what keeps the program independent under FDA’s 1997 guidance. A full editorial preview would turn the content into your labeling.

FDA attributes a paid endorser’s claims to a manufacturer when the manufacturer controls or sponsors the message. Our structure is designed to prevent attribution: the content is independent, not sponsor-controlled, and off-label statements are not clipped or amplified. Clinicians warrant their statements are their own professional opinion, and we indemnify within defined limits. No structure removes all risk; this one is designed to minimize attribution and we document it.

The discussion belongs with Medical Affairs as independent medical education or an unrestricted grant. The survey belongs with Commercial Insights as market research. Keeping brand marketing at arm’s length from the educational content is one of the core safeguards, so we ask that brand teams are not the content counterpart.

Not if they name a prescription medicine. Those sit behind healthcare-professional verification. Disease-level content that names no product can run more widely, following the MHRA’s disease-awareness guidance and equivalent national rules.

Anything that meets the reporting criteria in a discussion or a survey response is forwarded to your drug-safety contact within one business day, anonymized unless the clinician consents to be identified. Our team holds current BHBIA adverse-event training and records are retained for at least five years.

What you receive is aggregated and anonymized, so it is not personal data. Any personal data we process on your behalf is covered by an Article 28 processor agreement and a valid transfer mechanism.

Because you cannot rely on a vendor’s legal opinion; you remain independently accountable. What we can do is show you the mechanism behind every element, cite the rule, name who reviewed it, and hand your team a package built to verify quickly. That is a position your own counsel can stand behind.

No. A speaker bureau is where a manufacturer pays you to present its slides about its product. Here the company does not control content or choose speakers, the focus is a disease area or therapy class rather than one brand, and you are not promoting anything.

If you take the blinded survey, no: the sponsor never learns your identity, and payments it cannot connect to you are not reported. If you are named faculty in the discussion, the sponsor generally must report that payment. We tell you in writing, before you agree, which applies to your role.

Most academic centers prohibit industry speaker bureaus but permit paid market research and independent education. We give you a short description for your outside-activity form and a letter to your conflict-of-interest office confirming there is no promotional obligation and no required posting. Getting approval is your responsibility; we make it easy to describe accurately.

Yes. The sponsor has no editorial veto. Its review is limited to flagging factual errors, adverse events, and its own intellectual property.

No. Sharing is entirely optional. If you choose to share a clip, we give you the exact disclosure wording to include.

Yes. Synapse collects your responses as an independent research agency. The sponsor receives only aggregated, de-identified results with no name, NPI, email, or IP address. The one exception is an adverse-event report, and even then your identity is shared only with your consent.

From independent physician-compensation benchmarks by specialty and time required, set in advance, and paid at the same rate regardless of what you say or prescribe.

We are required to forward it to the sponsor’s drug-safety team within one business day. We do so without your identity unless you agree to share it for clinical follow-up.

Synapse licenses the recording for the program; you receive a license to your own segments and a takedown right for your contribution, on the terms in your agreement.

The safest course is to keep to approved, evidence-based use. Independent clinical opinion that touches unapproved use is your professional judgment in an educational setting; we ask you to flag it as such, and we do not clip or amplify it.

No. If anyone ever does, that breaks our own rules. Tell us.