We have reviewed the CEJA recomendations and the following is a quick list of points on why this is such a bad recomedation. First though there are some points in that ulitmately we both want the same things:
- The need for physicians to “maintain their clinical knowledge and skills through continuing medical education and other professional development activities.”
- The need to “sustain ongoing, productive relationships with the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies” in order to “promote continued innovation and improvement in patient care.”
- The requirement to “provide clinical training which ensures that current and future generations of physicians are competent and caring.”
We also see some areas that should be addressed:
· The CEJA committee ignores the vast body of existing ethical codes, accreditation rules and government regulation around CME including the ACCME, FDA, HHS OIG, US and State Attorney General enforcement, as well as existing CEJA codes.
· The CEJA Committee failed to recognize the significant differences between Certified CME and non accredited promotional activities.
o The CEJA report ignores the significant progress over the past decade by ACCME and the industry to ensure the independence of providers of CME from industry funders.
o It is a document that fails to recognize it’s own “bias, ” including failure to demonstrate fair balance in the reference articles it selected and arguments that it makes.
· This policy if adopted likely would create a serious challenge to AMA in keeping existing and recruiting new members. While physician members expect AMA to protect their best interest and the interest of their patients, this document fails to show how the recommendations would improve their practice and improve patient care.
· The policy would negatively affect the income of many current and potential AMA members.
· Payment for full cost of all certified CME would be an additional financial burden to physicians and reduce the quality of available CME.
· The Research Methodology of the report was below the AMA and industry standard for evidence based decision making, particularly insufficient to warrant justification for changing an entire system of post graduate medical education.
· The report ignores the value of cooperation between industry and physicians.
· This proposal will adversely affect major constituencies of the AMA, including specialty societies, hospitals and state societies.
· Adoption of the report would put the AMA in direct conflict with the most significant recommendations of AAMC’s similar recent report on conflict of interest.