American Medical Association (AMA): Annual Meeting of the House of Delegates

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – After 5 years of discussion and attempts at passage, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a conflict of interest policy to help guide physicians on the ethics of receiving pharmaceutical or device company funding for continuing medical education.

The House was asked to approve a report on financial arrangements prepared by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA). But because so many members continued to be divided on what the AMA policy should be, the Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws recommended that delegates put off any formal action and refer the matter yet again, this time to the AMA Board of Trustees.

When the resolution to refer came to the House floor, the vote was close, with 48% of delegates wanting to put off any action, and 52% voting against referral. Delegates were then asked whether to adopt the CEJA report. The vote was less ambiguous, with 60% voting in favor of adoption.

The report was supported by primary care delegations and many state delegations. Dr. Lori J. Heim, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said on the House floor that the latest iteration of the report addressed her organization’s concerns and should be adopted.

"I hope we can deal with this today rather than refer it back," said Dr. Heim, a family physician and hospitalist in Laurinburg, N.C. "The CEJA has found a compromise that we can all live with."

Dr. William Golden, a delegate from the American College of Physicians, and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said on the House floor that "version 5.0 is ready for distribution," and urged passage of the policy.

Several delegates said that although most specialty societies have conflict of interest policies, it was important for the AMA to have its own.

But some delegates from surgical societies said that passage of the policy might harm important relationships between surgeons and industry. The American College of Surgeons spoke against adoption of the policy.

In the report, the CEJA said it recognized that it could have looked more broadly at conflict of interest issues, but decided to focus on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device company sponsorship of continuing medical education.

"Narrowing our focus to CME allows us to explore the complex considerations at stake in a manageable context and to provide practical ethical guidance on issues that increasingly challenge physicians as professionals," according to the CEJA report.

The CEJA concluded that "physicians should strive to avoid financial relationships with industry."

Instead, physicians should "cultivate alternative sources of support, should design and conduct educational activities so as to reduce costs, and should insist that content developers and faculty members not have problematic ties with industry, to ensure independent, unbiased, high-quality educational programming that best meets physicians’ needs and is accessible and affordable for all practitioners," according to the report.

The report recognized that "it is not always feasible, or necessarily desirable, for professional education to disengage from industry completely." In the cases where industry funding could not be avoided, "vigorous efforts must be made to mitigate the potential influence of financial relationships."

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.