I am opposed to the Board's requiring any portion of the CE requirement for pharmacists to be live.  I feel that in order for the board to impose this new requirement, it should have to provide some evidence showing that live or interactive CE is a better educational experience than self-study coursework.  The Board has not provided this evidence in the documents made available thus far but is merely expressing its opinion.  From experience, I have found that having to review home-study coursework and pass a substantial post-test requires much more attention to and retention of course material than sitting through a live lecture where all you have to do is wait for a CE code at the end and complete an evaluation.  Typically, live CE is a lot more expensive and inconvenient than home-study courses.  There is a lot of home-study coursework available to pharmacists at minimal to no cost, and pharmacists can choose coursework that is relevant to their area of practice and interest, or where they may be weak and need additional education.  There is not even close to the same availability of live or interactive courses, forcing pharmacists to attend meetings or "interactive" courses that may not be offered at a time convenient to them, possibly even forcing them to take time off work or away from home/family.  Again, without a solid argument that live CE is more effective in maintaining pharmacist competency, I do not believe that the Board should be allowed to require this.  This new requirement will add substantial costs to renewing a pharmacist license, both in course costs as well as pharmacist time to attend a live or interactive program, without any stated basis or evidence shown for increased protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

Thanks,

Adam