MCEP Regulation Change:  What Does This Mean For Me as a CE Provider?

Based on the conversations and e-mails over the past several weeks, I’ve created the following plain language responses to the common questions and assumptions to help you understand the impact of the proposed MCEP Regulation Changes.  If you have questions about the reasons for the change, please see the April, 2009 Provider Bulletin on the MCEP website (www.mcepaa.org)

The proposed changes will mean:

1.   When the Accrediting Agency is phased out, you will have to seek out another accrediting body accepted by the Board of Psychology if you want to continue to offer CE credits to psychologists that they can use toward their relicensing requirement.   Those options are:

·        APA CE Sponsor Approval System -  information is available on their excellent website:  http://www.apa.org/ce/sponsorapproval.html.  

o       APA accepts applications twice a year

o       It is a great deal more expensive than the Accrediting Agency.

o       There is no individual course review but there is an annual activity report that requires syllabus and vita material.

o       One of the advantages will be the ability to offer CE credit for those who are licensed outside of California.  Most, if not all, state licensing boards that mandate CE for license renewal accept APA credits. 

·        Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME®)  -  This is primarily for hospital based, physician focused continuing education.  For more information:  http://www.accme.org/

·        California Medical Association (CMA/IMQ) – Again, primarily physician based but more flexible than ACCME.  For more information:  http://www.imq.org/imqdoc.cfm/16 

·        California Psychological Association -  It has not been decided whether CPA will approve CE for providers other than it’s own Chapters and Divisions – which  is our current practice.    That is a business decision that will not come up for formal consideration until the Fall.    

NOTE:  As I am tasked with creating the business plan over the summer for the CPA Board’s consideration, I will keep the MCEP Providers “in the loop” during this process.  I have a personal bias toward CPA expanding into this area as I think it is good for our members, good for CPA as an organization, and good for the smaller in-state CE providers which would be our niche. 

2.  The Board of Psychology is not going to take over an accrediting function similar to the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS).

3.   The Board of Psychology’s decision to eliminate the MCEP Accrediting Agency is not dependent upon  CPA’s decision to become an accrediting body for other than our own Chapters and Divisions.   The Board has decided on the change whether or not CPA expands into this area.   

4.   CPA has suggested a time certain start date so that Providers will have ample time to make alternate arrangements and the Accrediting Agency can phase out in a planned and controlled manner.  Otherwise the change would go into effect 30 days after the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approves them.   If the first public hearing is in August, we will propose January 1, 2011 as the start date – presuming it will take 9 -12 months to effect the regulation change.    If the first public hearing is in November, we will propose July 1, 2011.

If Jan 1, 2011 is the start date of the new regulations, that means all courses that take place in 2010 would be under the old system and all courses scheduled to take place in 2011 would need to be via the new system.   This is why there needs to be sufficient time between approval of the regulation change (i.e.,  by OAL) and the actual implementation date so that no course is caught between systems. 

If you have additional questions, please contact me: 

Patricia VanWoerkom

Director, MCEP Accrediting Agency

pvanwoerkom@cpapsych.org