CME Faculty Honoraria: Make the Offer Clear Before the Invitation

A faculty invitation should say what work is being requested and what compensation is available before the expert accepts. For CME planners, the useful question extends beyond whether accreditation requires an honorarium: can the person understand the commitment well enough to make a decision?

An October 26 tip from AOE Consulting supplies the immediate prompt. The consultant explains that ACCME does not prescribe whether outside experts must receive honoraria or how much they must receive. That answers an accreditation question. The provider still has a budgeting and recruitment decision to make, subject to its own applicable policies and agreements.

Separate the payment decision from the funding rules

ACCME Standard 4 governs accredited education receiving financial or in-kind support from ineligible companies. It puts decisions about receiving and disbursing that support with the accredited provider. An ineligible company cannot directly pay education-related expenses. Support may fund honoraria and travel for people controlling content in those roles; it cannot pay individual learners' honoraria or personal expenses.

For supported activities, the standard also requires an agreement executed before the education begins and an accounting of support received and used. These are funding controls, rather than a fee schedule. The current policy was reviewed November 2; AOE's dated October 26 tip already links to Standard 4. No new rule or change in rates is being reported here.

A provider can therefore ask two separate questions: what compensation is appropriate for this assignment, and how can the proposed funding be used? Having a grant does not let the supporter take over payment decisions. Having no grant does not settle what the provider should offer.

Put the whole assignment in the offer

Earlier conversations reveal why the invitation matters. In a September 2022 physician thread, the author described discomfort asking about an honorarium after receiving a speaking invitation. That is one person's experience, not a measure of how often faculty are underpaid. It does suggest a practical improvement: make the terms visible without requiring the invitee to negotiate for basic information.

Consider a hypothetical case-based webinar. The planner needs a preparation call, original cases, slides, a rehearsal, a live session, and a review of the recording. An offer that mentions only a one-hour talk hides much of the requested effort.

Before sending it, write down the deliverables, review dates, expected preparation, live commitment, and any work after the session. State the proposed honorarium, the expense arrangement, and the expected payment timing. Explain whether recording, reuse, or later updates are part of the request. These are recommended planning practices, not additional ACCME requirements.

A short invitation might say:

We are inviting you to develop two cases and present a live webinar, with one planning call and one rehearsal. The attached scope lists the review dates and proposed recording use. It also states the honorarium, reimbursable expenses, and payment timing. Please tell us whether the scope and terms work for you before accepting.

Fill in actual terms before sending. If no honorarium is available, say so alongside the scope. A limited budget is a reason to consider a smaller assignment or another format; it does not establish that an expert can absorb unlimited preparation.

Decide what to change when the answer is no

If an invited expert declines, identify which part of the offer failed: payment, timing, preparation burden, or reuse expectations. Revise the scope before asking another person to accept the same unclear commitment. Do not infer a market rate or an equity finding from one declined invitation.

For collaborations, our earlier article on assigning responsibility across shared CME activities supplies the next dependency: agree which team can approve the offer and which team will administer it. This edition adds the terms that the faculty member needs to see before that workflow starts.

The next invitation is a useful test. Can the recipient tell what they will produce, what they will receive, and what happens if the assignment grows? Resolve those questions while the work is still a proposal.