This article examines recent trends in the distribution of Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) providers in the years leading up to the incorporation of Joint Accreditation (JA) as a distinct yet related category of provider authorized to award continuing pharmacy education (CPE) credit. For broader context, I compared these figures with data from the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) over the same period. The data cited here are drawn from the last 13 years of ACPE annual reports (2012–2024) and the 2024 ACCME Annual Report.¹ ACPE annual reports are typically published in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education or are available directly from ACPE.

The CPE provider community was very stable from 2012 to 2016, ranging from 352 to 356 accredited providers. In the background though, the joint accreditation (JA) initiative was getting started, with accreditation decisions being made under the auspices of the ACCME, ACPE and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) starting in July 2010. Reporting JA providers as a separate category, however, did not begin until the 2017 ACPE annual report.

Adding the JA category of accredited providers has driven consistent growth in the aggregate number of providers awarding CPE credit, up to 446 as of 2024, with ACPE-only providers dropping and converging with the rapid growth of JA accredited providers. It’s noteworthy that this pattern continued even through the pandemic’s disruptions.

Each of the healthcare professions has specific, historical and nuanced characteristics describing how their continuing education (CE) institutions and policies emerged. Pharmacy education is no exception.

The ACPE, founded as the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education in 1932, was responsible for the accreditation of degree granting schools of pharmacy. Over time, the importance of CE grew and was generally recognized, so in 1975 the profession asked the ACPE “to develop national quality standards for continuing pharmacy education (CPE).”² The profession here refers to “the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) and the American Pharmaceutical Association (now American Pharmacists Association; APhA).”³

The ACPE was tasked with developing both the accreditation standards for CPE providers as well as a CPE credit system to document pharmacists’ participation in CPE activities. This arrangement differs from that governing the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) role as owner of the AMA PRA Category 1 Credit^TM system, the accreditation of CME providers having been assigned to the ACCME at its founding in 1981 (AMA was one of the original seven sponsoring organizations).

In contrast, the ACCME has experienced more volatile changes in the number of accredited providers over that period; part of that is structural. The ACCME’s collaboration with the state medical societies (SMS) and territories allows these entities to function as recognized accreditors who, through a framework of equivalency, can accredit state-level CME providers.

Between 2012 and 2024, the number of state-accredited CME providers collapsed — from 1,319 to 739, a 44% reduction. Meanwhile, nationally accredited ACCME providers saw a smaller decline, from 681 in 2012 to 635 in 2024, with signs of post-pandemic stabilization.⁴

Mitigating that loss is the emergence of the JA-accredited provider community, from almost none to 187. These are nationally accredited providers though, and it’s unclear what relationship they would have (if any) with the disappearance of 580 state level accredited providers since 2012. The decline is even more stark if we track back to 2006, the peak year for state-level accredited providers (1684).⁵ In 18 years, 895 or 53% of these providers have ceased operations.

Conclusion

The CME provider community has clearly undergone significant consolidation in recent years, particularly when compared to the more stable trajectory of the ACPE. Over the years, observers have suggested a number of reasons for this tectonic shift in the distribution of CME providers. Principal among these is the closure or consolidation of regional and rural hospital systems. Another factor may be the accreditation process itself, as compliance protocols have become more demanding.⁶ I would note that the ACPE, for the purposes of this comparison, has never involved itself in the direct, state-level accreditation of CPE providers.

In preparing this brief communication, I spoke with Dimitra V. Travlos, PharmD, FNAP, ACPE assistant executive director, who generously shared her perspective on the ACPE’s culture and history. The key to their success has been open communication and building a “profession-driven process” in support of CPE, which is important since the ACPE owns both the provider accreditation process and the credit system. The legitimacy of their system hinges on respect among all the stakeholders, principally but not only the APhA.

References

1. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME). 2025. ACCME 2024 Data Report: Evolving Impact in a Shifting Landscape. Chicago, IL: Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. https://accme.org/resource/accme‑2024‑data‑report‑pdf.
2. Travlos, Dimitra V., Peter H. Vlasses, Janet P. Engle, and B. Joseph Guglielmo. 2017. “Forty Years of ACPE CPE Accreditation.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 81 (9): Article 5998.
3. Ibid.
4. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME). 2025. ACCME 2024 Data Report: Evolving Impact in a Shifting Landscape. Chicago, IL: Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. https://accme.org/resource/accme‑2024‑data‑report‑pdf.
5. Ibid.
6. Protocol for Recognition of State Medical Society Accreditation Programs (H-300.968), https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/ACCME?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-0-2386.xml