Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Continuing Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates recognizing PACE for continuing education as CE overhaul moves forward
Summary
Board members heard a PACE presentation and a substantial debate about accepting PACE credit, balancing access to national conferences and reduced staff workload against concerns about vetting individual courses and fee impacts; staff directed to take the matter to the CE committee.
The Board of Chiropractic Examiners spent a substantial portion of its Jan. 16 meeting on continuing-education policy and whether to recognize PACE (Provider Accreditation of Continuing Education) courses for California CE credit.
Kelly Webb, PACE coordinator, told the board PACE administers a multi-step provider approval process, audits courses (including "secret shoppers"), reviews advertising for compliance, and in 2025 audited about 67 providers. "PACE is a free service to our licensing board," Webb said, describing PACEoversight and auditing capabilities.
Board members and staff weighed several considerations: proponents said accepting PACE would expand access for California licensees to national conferences and reduce staff workload reviewing courses; opponents highlighted the boardpolicy goal to move toward competency-based CE and questioned how PACE's standards would map to California's five proposed competency areas and whether reciprocal recognition would forfeit the board's course-level oversight.
Krista Walker, the board's executive officer, advised caution because the board's CE-provision fees help offset administrative costs and because staff must ensure any recognition is compatible with California's pending CE competency regulations. She recommended a two-step approach: consider limited acceptance (for elective hours) while the CE committee develops regulatory language and completes a fiscal analysis.
Board members directed staff to bring the PACE question and related implementation details to the Continuing Education Committee for further work and recommended inviting PACE representatives to committee discussions. No regulatory changes were adopted at the full-board meeting; staff said they will present refined draft language and fiscal modeling to the committee and later to the full board.
