The AMA CEJA report apparently made it out of reference committee with a recommendation to “Accept”, however, it failed to pass at the House of delegates again (I think this is the fourth time it has been referred back to committee). Thus it has been referred back to CEJA for reconsideration.
It would seem prudent for CEJA to consider a different approach. The last versions have all called for some ban on funding, have used outdated information and publications, and have not been based in ethical principles. Importantly, they continue to establish the benchmark for conflict and bias at any possibility instead of the more scientific probability basis. In addition, in trying to craft some allowance for funding they create regulatory and documentation burdens that interfere with education and will only drive up the cost of CME. Anyone involved in CME can see that the two things this field does not need are greater cost and regulatory/documentation burden.
Furthermore, the CEJA standards that presently exist may in fact be sufficient and CEJA may want to consider holding off instead of trying to submit a new report at each and every possible cycle. This would allow for all of the changes that exist in CME and in health care in general that are related to relationship management, transparency and conflict to settle out and be measured for effect. Thus any change to the CEJA reports and guidance could be evidence-based instead of historically-based.