In the Kober household, one of our favorite holiday games is unofficially called, “What day is it today?” Since we are all off from work and/or school for at least the majority of this stretch, it’s a fun game to challenge your memory.

Here is how you play:

1. You wake up (some of us earlier than others. Teenagers with no school? Why bother being awake when the sun is still up?)
2. You remember that you aren’t planning on doing any work today. Yippee!
3. But then you can’t remember what you are supposed to do today. You know you are getting together with your friends from high school on Thursday and then your aunt and uncle are coming over for dinner on Saturday, but you have no idea what day of the week it is. Christmas was on, uh, Tuesday? So (counting on fingers) that would make today, um, maybe Friday? Crap, did you miss your night out with your friends?
4. You roll over and ask the wife, “Today is Friday, right?”
5. She wakes up grumpily and says, “Wrong. Check your phone.” And goes back to sleep.
6. You hop out of bed, look at your phone, and gleefully see that it is Wednesday. But which Wednesday? The Wednesday before you are getting together with your friends, or the Saturday after? You consider waking the wife again to ask but value your life too much.
7. You realize you can figure it out by turning on the TV and seeing if there is a football game on. And yes, indeed, it’s everyone favorite – the Pop-Tart Bowl on CBS. That would mean it’s, um, well, that really doesn’t mean anything right now because there is a football game on (college and/or pro) pretty much every day. Crap.
8. You go back to bed.

Especially during years like this one where Christmas and New Year’s both fell in the middle of the week, playing “What day is it today?” became particularly fun.

However, now we are all sadly back to reality. Today is most definitely Tuesday, which means it’s time to rev up the old CMEpalooza engine again. We’ll got some fun stuff on tap in the near future (including the return of everyone’s favorite CME superhero), but we’re starting things off by tapping into the creative energy of our little community to help us with our CMEpalooza Spring agenda.

Yes indeed, the planning has begun for CMEpalooza Spring (it’s on Wednesday, April 22. Save the date in your calendar if you haven’t already.) As in the past few years, we want to include a broad range of folks in the planning and development process of the CMEpalooza Spring agenda. Anyone is welcome to submit an idea for a CMEpalooza Spring session, though it would probably help if it’s a good idea (we tend to like those).

The process is fairly simple. If you have an idea for a session that you would like to lead at CMEpalooza Spring, just complete the CMEpalooza Spring 2026 Abstract Submission form by the end of the day on Monday, February 23. After that, Derek and I will review all the proposals we receive and select the best of them for inclusion in the official Spring agenda. If there are more that we like, we may hold onto some ideas for the Fall event. Maybe.

Here are a few guidelines:

1. This is a virtual conference and all sessions are done via StreamYard. No muss, no fuss.
2. Proposals will only be considered if they are submitted either via the abstract submission form or hand delivered by the Wells Fargo wagon. Choose whichever method is easier for you, but remember that Philadelphia potholes are notoriously treacherous this time of year and the Wells Fargo wagon is notoriously unreliable in the wintertime.
3. The deadline for proposals to be submitted is 6 p.m. ET on Monday, February 23.
4. We are open to pretty much any idea as long as it relates in some way to CME/CE. The more creative, the better. One of these years, Derek will realize his dream and a CMEpalooza Musical will be among the submissions. Over the holidays, Derek saw the Neil Diamond movie (which, I’m told is not about Neil Diamond but rather a Neil Diamond tribute band) and has been humming “Sweet Caroline (But I Rejected Her Grant Proposal Anyway)” round the clock.
5. Interactive formats with multiple presenters, such as panel sessions and interviews, are encouraged. If you want to figure out a unique way to incorporate our audience response platform (Poll Everywhere) into your session, that’s totally fine too.
6. Please verify the availability of all presenters for the date of CMEpalooza (Wednesday, April 22) before submitting their name in your proposal. Or at least have some sort of contingency plan if they cannot participate.
7. We don’t want to limit creativity, so there isn’t a limit on the number of proposals you can submit, but please use common sense and be reasonable. We will likely only choose one proposal for which you are listed as the lead contact, so don’t submit 10 proposals or something crazy like that.
8. We’d prefer that you not simply submit a proposal that mirrors a presentation you gave at another conference within the last 12 months. We keep a pretty close eye on our “competition,” so don’t think you’ll sneak something past us. At the very least, give your idea a unique spin.
9. We will notify you within a week of the abstract submission deadline if your proposal has been accepted or not. That will give us 8 weeks to coordinate and plan, which we hope is enough time.
10. If you have any questions, feel free to email Derek (thecmeguy@gmail.com) or Scott (scott@excaliburmeded.com), or find us at the Alliance conference in February.

I think that about covers it. We especially want to encourage people who have never presented at CMEpalooza to submit a proposal. We are always happy to have new faces at CMEpalooza. Maybe you are intimidated by getting up in a front of a room full of your colleagues and presenting material — not a problem with CMEpalooza. Maybe you are worried that your idea would be too “out there” for a traditional conference — not a problem with CMEpalooza. Maybe you are just too lazy to want to put together a slide deck for a presentation — so are we, which is why we often encourage our panelists to use few (if any) slides.

It’s not the trying that’s hard.

Click here for the CMEpalooza Spring 2026 Abstract Submission form

Some of you who have been reading the blog for a while now may have noticed that I enjoy making lists, particularly “Top 5” lists of things I do or don’t like. This has been a lifetime passion of mine, even as a kid. I can’t tell you how excited a young Derek was to bring home a brand-new copy of The Baseball Book of Lists from Browseabout Books in Rehoboth Beach, DE, in 1983 and spend the entire day poring over its contents.

What 10-year-old wouldn’t be mesmerized by lists such as “Rod Carew’s 10 Toughest Pitchers to Hit” and “William Shakespeare’s 15 Best Baseball Quotes” and “Morganna the Kissing Bandit’s 5 Best Kissers?” (side note: No, I am not making that up. Morganna the Kissing Bandit was a real person who would travel around to various baseball parks to sneak out onto the field and kiss unsuspecting players. The 70s and 80s were wild, man.)

For a number of years, around this time of year I would put together my Top 5 Best Holiday Songs list, which usually consisted of some combination of Springsteen’s Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Wham!’s Last Christmas (there will be no Last Christmas slander on this website), and The Waitresses Christmas Wrapping. I stopped making this list about five years ago when I had the sudden epiphany that the best holiday song was, of course, Nat King Cole’s The Christmas Song, and everything else was a distant second place. This remains correct. Nothing has happened to change my mind since.  You may not want to admit it, but you know I’m right.

Much more fun is making a list of the Top 5 Worst Holiday Songs. It feels a little mean spirited to call any of these songs “worst” (though they deserve it), so I’m updating the title to the Top 5 Holiday Songs That Make Me Change the Station or Skip Ahead When They Come On. It’s a bit long, but I think effectively communicates the purpose of the list. All of these songs are very popular and have probably made the writers and performers a ton of money, so I don’t feel bad critiquing them. So, without further ado, here are the Top 5 Holiday Songs That Make Me Change the Station or Skip Ahead When They Come On:

5. Do They Know It’s Christmas? — Band Aid. The song itself is not too bad, maybe even kind of catchy. It’s on this list entirely because of the line Bono sings midway through, “”Well tonight, thank God it’s them instead of you!” Yeesh. Condescending and tone deaf. Deserves a permanent spot on this list.

4. Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time — Paul McCartney. Awful from the very first synthesized note. The worst earworm you can imagine. It should probably be #1 on this list, but I can’t do that to a Beatle.

3. Dominick the Donkey — Lou Monte. Holy crap is this song annoying. Yet, somehow, it is not the most annoying song on the list because song #2 exists.

2. I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas — Gayla Peevey. If nails scratching a chalkboard could be made into a holiday song, it would be this. A weird song made even less tolerable by the annoying voice singing it.

1. The Christmas Shoes — NewSong. Mawkish, self-congratulatory, poverty porn schlock. Other than that, it’s not bad.

Oh, I also updated the CMEpalooza Archive with all the sessions from CMEpalooza Fall 2025. Now you can spend your holiday break enjoying all your favorite CMEpalooza videos. You’re welcome!

Yes indeed, ’tis the month of bags filled with mail from little boys and girls asking for that special something. Sadly, we were unable to get good old Saint Nick to help out with CMEpalooza’s special mailbox — our Ask Us Anything feature — so it’s up to the two of us (with some help from a few of our own elves) to calm your nerves, ease those holiday blues, and soothe your soul.

I will admit that, after turning over our usually overflowing mailbag, not much is left over for future months, so please, if you have an issue (professional or personal) you want us to help with, click here to submit your question(s). We’ll do our jolly best to give our usual helpful advice. Surely you have some family holiday angst you need us to referee.

Dear Derek and Scott,

In medical education workplaces, younger professionals often want to be heard (as they should), but it can feel like those of us with experience are being treated like relics instead of active contributors.

I’m in many groups where we are genuinely excited to bring in fresh perspectives, but lately I keep hearing the same phrase, “We don’t want to hear from the same old voices.” Cute at first… until you realize they mean you.

It seems as though the only way they feel they have a voice is to silence others. And guess what? If they keep accelerating the timeline for when someone becomes ‘old,’ they’re going to phase themselves out faster than a trend on TikTok.

How do we strike the balance between honoring experience and embracing new voices? How do we help these newbies understand that experience isn’t a nuisance to be cleared out but the foundation they’ll be standing on when the next shiny new crowd rolls in?

Huzzah,

Respectfully Seasoned

SCOTT: This is one of those age-old issues that is common among companies of any type and size. The youngins come in and want to establish their foothold by coming up with all sorts of great ideas in an effort to be heard and seen. The old guard wants to protect their place in the pecking order and make sure that their experience and knowledge is acknowledged appropriately. It’s one of those push and pull issues that everyone then gripes about to their significant others/friends/family over the weekend.

It sounds like you have a role in a variety of different groups, probably both personally and professionally. Your feelings are hurt, and rightly so, when you are no longer seen as bringing value to the team in favor of these newer voices.

From my experience, it comes down to having the right leader in place who can deftly both incorporate the, as you note, valuable and necessary input from new voices as well as that from seasoned (OK, fine, older) professionals. I have been within organizations and groups where there was poor leadership in place and this devolved into a really toxic “us vs. them” situation full of back-biting and unrest. But I have also been part of circumstances where the leader — be it the CEO/President or group leader — was skilled at striking the right balance to keep everyone happy and engaged.

Being this kind of leader isn’t something that is easily taught or learned (and frankly, it’s not a personal area of strength). You have to be a good listener, a quick thinker, and a skilled diplomat. You recognize when feelings are hurt and bring aggrieved parties together to hash out solutions before things cascade out of control. You consider personalities and life circumstances. You figure out ways to find connections between people of all ages and perspectives. And sometimes, yes, you make the hard decision to cut loose people who simply don’t want to play together in the same sandbox.

DEREK: One of the interesting aspects of being part of an industry-wide community is the diverse array of settings and environments that community members work in. What feels like a pressing issue to Person A might be something that Person B has never experienced. That doesn’t diminish the impact of the issue on Person A but perhaps adds perspective to how pervasive the issue may be community wide.

Personally, the issue of newbies pushing out old heads is not one I’ve had much experience with. In fact, if anything, I’ve had more trouble with the reverse situation. As producers and planners of a twice-yearly conference, Scott and I are constantly juggling the balance of seasoned faculty vs new voices. Without a doubt, it is the new voices that we have much more difficulty finding.

Outside of CMEpalooza, the workplace issues I have seen and experienced related to sharing of perspectives and opinions have revolved more around personality types than age. It’s the same old story of the more extroverted individuals dominating the discussion while the introverts wait for a break in the conversation (that never comes) to share their thoughts. The extroverts are annoyed at the introverts for not participating, and the introverts are annoyed at the extroverts for not giving them time to speak.

That is not the issue you are asking about, but I think the method of resolution is similar. When these types of conflicts arise, we all can benefit from a healthy dose of self-reflection and self-awareness. If you are upset with the new guard trying to drown you out or with the extroverts for failing to read the questions you submitted to the Zoom chat, take a moment to think about if there is anything you could personally do to improve the situation. Compromise is the key. Scott is right to point out the value of a good leader in these situations. A good leader will lead their team through a self-reflection process and work with both sides on a compromise.

Dear Derek and Scott,

Why do supporters issue RFPs at the end of the year if they’re only going to decline the applications citing a lack of funding?

Curiously,

Just Curious

DEREK: This is a little tricky to answer without additional context, but I’ll do the best I can.

“Lack of funds” does not mean “no funds.” Supporters do not issue RFPs without some budget dedicated to it. It’s possible that budget is small. It’s possible that budget is only enough for one grant. It’s possible that the application you submitted was really, really good — so good that it was ranked the second-best application received for the RFP., which, unfortunately, means there are not enough funds available to approve it. Thus, your application is declined for lack of funds.

Side note: You specifically mention RFPs at the end of the year, and I’m not quite sure what the relevance is here. Maybe I’m missing something. It is not uncommon for supporters to realize in Q4 that they have additional budget to use (there are a variety of reasons for this) and issue an RFP, but I don’t think that’s related to “lack of funds” rejections more than RFPs issued at other times of the year. Maybe Scott will correct me below.

SCOTT: I have a love-hate relationship with RFPs. They are good because they show that pharma company XYZ definitely has some money to spend in a specific therapeutic area on a specific topic and maybe even with a preferred format. They are bad because now everyone knows that pharma company XYZ definitely has some money to spend in a specific therapeutic area on a specific topic and there will be a mountain of grant submissions to compete with. I have anecdotally heard tales of supporters receiving upwards of 50 grants for one RFP (note from Derek: I can confirm this is accurate. I’ve received even more than that for one RFP.) Even if, for arguments sake, there are 3 “winning” grants, that means there are 47 losers. That’s a lot of organizations that get a decline email with a “lack of funding” rationale.

If you want to do some post-RFP research, it is usually possible to find a good number of the “winning” proposals, especially if they were tied to a specific conference. In earlier days, there was at least one pharma company that I am aware of that used to actually post the winning RFPs on their grant portal so everyone could see what was awarded and perhaps gain some insight into why that might have been the case. However, that hasn’t happened — at least that I am aware of — for many years.

I have a hard time believing that a pharma company would go through the time and effort to post an RFP and then not award any grant dollars to a “winning” proposal. I suppose it is possible if there are unforeseen circumstances, and funding that was initially earmarked for the RFP was pulled, but I would not think that is common. Yes, it can be frustrating to receive a cavalcade of “lack of funding” declines related to an RFP and there are most certainly dozens of other applicants grumbling right along with you, but that doesn’t mean that someone isn’t celebrating their “your funding application has been approved” email at the same time.

Dear Derek and Scott,

I think I already know the answer, but I’d appreciate your input.

Dr. B. Styles is an investor and on the Medical Advisory Board of his brother’s company, Styles Pharmaceuticals, which solely produces a CBD product for the treatment of insomnia. The CBD product has been clinically tested and registered with the FDA. Dr. Styles has disclosed this relationship to the CME provider in preparation for a presentation on pain management.

Although CBD has been clinically proven to aid in pain management, that’s not part of Styles Pharmaceuticals’ business line, nor does the company specifically promote CBD for pain management.

Does this relationship need to be mitigated? Should this relationship be disclosed to learners? Is there anything else we need to be worried about?

Back in the Saddle Again,

Disclosure Debbie

SCOTT: Just reading this question made me want to swallow a CBD gummy. So many variables, so many issues. And of course, since the question deals with the grey area of accreditation, I have no idea.

But this is where it pays to have friends, so I turned to the accreditation wizards behind our Fall 2025 “One Step Over the Line? What’s Right, What’s Wrong, and What Falls Into the Grey Area of Accredited CE” session to get their input. In a nutshell, here are their thoughts (if you aren’t an accreditation savant, you may want to pop a CBD gummy of your own right about now):

“Since the educational topic is pain management and Styles’ Pharmaceuticals’ business lines are related to insomnia — a completely different therapeutic area — Dr. B. Styles’ relationships are not relevant and do not require mitigation or disclosure under ACCME Standard 3 (see this Examples of Relevant Content document).

Nonetheless, we would advise Disclosure Debbie to have the presentation peer reviewed to confirm the following:

1. This presentation is not related to insomnia in any way. Even if it not included within his submitted slides, it may be worth reaching out to Dr. B Styles to ask if a discussion of insomnia is part of his planned oral remarks. Clearly, it doesn’t seem far fetched that CBD could be discussed….for instance, if someone has pain, that can lead to insomnia…
2. The presentation and its content meets the content validity expectations outlined in Standard 1 since Medical Marijuana and CBD are explicitly highlighted on the ACCME’s Website
3. The presentation discloses any new and emerging trends, as well as the evidence level supporting any claims or conclusions
4. The presentation meets content standards/requirements for all of your accrediting bodies (not just The Standards) since these may differ

But oh wise one, you said that the relationship wasn’t relevant to the content, why do I have to have it peer reviewed (essentially mitigating it)?? Well young padawan, if you are already having the content reviewed for content validity under Standard 1, you might as well have it reviewed for relevance too (and document it). This shows that you did your due diligence, especially if Styles Pharmaceuticals is a privately held company, which makes Dr. B Styles an ‘owner of an ineligible company’ and you are relying on the three exemptions under Standard 3.2 that permit him to be a presenting faculty member. Keep this documentation on hand for purposes of your self-study, PIP abstracts, audits, and the interview in case you need it.”

It may also be wise to assign a non-conflicted planner to monitor/moderate the session. This person can help ensure that Dr. Styles’ presentation and any follow-up discussions remain focused on the agreed-upon topics for the talk (ie, pain management). If the Q&A includes questions about sleep aspects of pain management, the planner can intervene to guide the conversation back to the approved topic, adding an extra layer of protection against any commercial bias.

Where our panelists differed is in their approach to Dr. Styles’ disclosure. Some felt it prudent to include his relationship and “over-disclose” to learners, letting them assess any potential conflict while others felt it was important only to disclose what their team had deemed relevant to the content. Like I said, grey areas.

Here are even some resources this crackerjack team suggested for you:

• Peer Review Form to validate content and relevance
• Compliance Check “When is a Financial Relationship Relevant?”
• Examples of related/unrelated content

I am sure that Derek has much, much more he’d like to add on this issue.

DEREK: [glances at nonexistent watch on his wrist]

Hoo boy, look at the time! I have so much I’d like to add here based on my accreditation experience as a CME Director 15 years ago, but with our word count approaching 2,500 words, I should probably wrap it up and save all that pent up wisdom for another AMA session. Too bad!