The federal policy environment is undergoing a rapid and consequential shift, with direct implications for continuing medical education (CME). From new administrative priorities to evolving congressional dynamics and heightened scrutiny of industry relationships, CME stakeholders are navigating a landscape markedly different from even a few years ago. Understanding why these changes matter — and how the CME community can proactively respond — is essential to ensuring that accredited education continues to support patients and physicians.
This article draws from discussions at the 2025 Alliance Industry Summit and reflects the CME Coalition’s perspective on the current environment, emerging federal and state policy developments, and what lies ahead for accredited CME.
The Current Policy Environment: A Shift in Priorities
At the center of today’s policy landscape is a recalibration of federal health priorities driven by the current administration and its leadership across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collectively, these agencies are shaping a policy agenda that places increased emphasis on chronic disease, nutrition, opioid abuse, drug pricing reform, data modernization and prevention.
At the same time, several areas that have previously received significant federal attention — such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), certain gender-related services, global health initiatives and vaccine mandates or research — are being comparatively de-emphasized. This shift does not diminish the importance of these issues to patient care, but it does signal where federal messaging, funding and oversight are likely to be concentrated in the near term.
For CME, this environment presents both challenges and opportunities. Policymakers are asking tougher questions about alignment: How does accredited CME support national health priorities? How does it demonstrate independence, scientific rigor and public benefit? And, how can education be positioned as part of the solution to complex health challenges rather than as an extension of industry influence?
Where CME Fits — and Why Alignment Matters
One of the most significant developments shaping the CME conversation is the work of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission. Its initial report on childhood chronic disease highlights poor diet, environmental exposures, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and what it terms “overmedicalization” as key drivers of poor health outcomes. Notably, the report includes pointed language about the influence of private industry, specifically calling out the pharmaceutical sector for its perceived role in distorting medical knowledge and contributing to overprescribing.
Industry-funded CME is explicitly referenced in this context, underscoring the need for the CME community to clearly articulate and demonstrate the safeguards that ensure independence, balance and evidence-based education. Accredited CME has long operated under rigorous standards designed to prevent bias and protect learners, but those protections must be consistently communicated to policymakers who may not fully understand the accreditation system.
Looking ahead, CME leaders should be proactive in highlighting accredited programs that address administrative priorities such as chronic disease prevention, responsible prescribing, nutrition education and data-driven quality improvement. Doing so reinforces the value of CME as a trusted educational infrastructure that supports better care rather than undermines it.
Federal and State Policy Developments to Watch
Beyond the broader policy narrative, several specific federal and state actions are particularly relevant for CME professionals.
At the federal level, recent executive orders have touched on accreditation reform, drug pricing, health data infrastructure, biological research safety and domestic production of critical medicines. While not all of these actions directly reference CME, they shape the regulatory and political context in which education operates — especially as lawmakers examine how clinicians are trained, assessed and supported throughout their careers.
Congress is also continuing to consider a range of health care provisions with downstream implications for education, including changes to Medicare physician payment and rural health transformation initiatives. These policies influence practice environments, workforce needs and ultimately the educational gaps that CME is designed to address.
One notable example of CME’s growing policy relevance is the Medication Access and Training Expansion (MATE) Act (bill text; ACCME FAQ). Initially established as a one-time CME requirement for opioid prescribers, the law opened the door to broader conversations about ongoing education mandates tied to public health priorities. The CME Coalition has been actively engaged with lawmakers on potential amendments that would strengthen and extend the educational components of this legislation — an illustration of how CME can be positioned as a constructive policy tool rather than a regulatory afterthought.
At the state level, legislatures across the country are introducing bills that expand or refine CME requirements on topics such as menopause, implicit bias, communication with individuals who are hard of hearing, maternal health, simulation training and care for individuals with developmental disabilities. While these initiatives vary widely, they reflect a common trend of policymakers increasingly seeing continuing education as a lever for improving care delivery and addressing workforce challenges.
Looking Ahead: Implications for the CME Community
As we look at the rest of 2026 and beyond, several themes stand out.
First, federal dollars for health care — and by extension, for education — are likely to face continued pressure. CME providers and supporters will need to make a compelling case for the return on investment that high-quality, accredited education delivers.
Second, scrutiny of pharmaceutical industry practices is intensifying and CME will remain part of that conversation. Transparency, independence and outcomes-focused education are no longer just best practices; they are essential to maintaining credibility with regulators and the public.
Finally, shifting health care priorities demands agility. CME that is responsive to emerging policy goals — while remaining grounded in learner needs and patient outcomes — will be best positioned to demonstrate its relevance and value.
Interested in this article? Join the discussion on the Alliance Community.
Andrew Rosenberg, MP, JD, brings 30 years of experience as a lobbyist, Capitol Hill staffer and former congressional candidate to the CME Coalition. Throughout his career, Rosenberg has counseled a wide range of corporations, trade associations and nonprofits on strategic matters involving public policy. Prior to entering the private sector, Rosenberg spent several years working on Capitol Hill. He served on the Senate HELP Committee and the personal staffs of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. In the years since, Rosenberg established himself as a highly respected and effective lobbyist, focusing the majority of his practice in the area of health policy. Prior to co-founding Thorn Run Partners, Rosenberg led the health policy practice at Ogilvy Government Relations, and previously was a member of the health policy group at Patton Boggs LLP. Rosenberg received his bachelors of arts at Amherst College, and obtained his masters degree and law degree at the University of Virginia.