Lost in Translation: Why CBIC’s New Education Rules Are Raising Questions in the Field

In June, presenters at the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) 2026 Annual Conference and Exposition in Nashville noticed something in their session listings: no infection prevention units (IPUs). This matters because IPs certified through the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) recertify by collecting IPUs. One of them, Rebecca Battjes, MPH, CIC, FAPIC, assumed it was a typo. She asked and was told it was an oversight that would not happen again. However, the credit was never restored.¹

Speaking on this site’s Contagious Conversations podcast, she said she still does not fully understand why it happened, beyond the fact that she works for industry, as an APIC strategic partner, a role she has held for more than 10 years. Her APIC 2025 session on the same topic and similar content was offered for IPUs.¹ So what changed?

The timing made the decision even harder to understand. Battjes presented on June 15, 2026. CBIC states that its updated Industry Partner requirements apply to activities held on or after June 29.² An archived version of CBIC’s provider approval page captured on June 11 contained no Industry Partner definition or accreditation requirement.³ The current page does.⁴

That sequence does not prove motive, and we should not assign one. It does, however, show why the field has struggled to understand what changed, when it changed, and how the rule was being applied. The change was announced in a blog post, and earlier reporting in this publication noted that no accompanying social media announcement could be found.⁵ The IPs documented here learned of it after the fact, one from a session listing and one not at all.^1,5 A rule may make sense in principle, but fair implementation requires clear communication. That falls apart when the underlying documents do not match, and the notice never reaches the audience it governs.

The Objective Deserves to Be Taken Seriously

CBIC and APIC have now explained the concern that prompted the change. In a joint commentary, the 2 organizations' chief executives wrote that some sessions presented as education had functioned as sales pitches. Their position is straightforward: Industry support is welcome, but commercial control of credentialed education is not.⁶

We agree with the objective. CBIC has a legitimate responsibility to protect the integrity of IPU-eligible education, and infection prevention should not accept product promotion disguised as science. The updated standard places certain Industry Partner activities into an independent-accreditation pathway already familiar in medicine and nursing. That is a reasonable policy goal.

The commentary also corrects some early assumptions. Independent consulting, coaching, research, and education businesses are not Industry Partners simply because they charge for their services. Industry-employed IPs may still teach independently developed content unrelated to their employer’s products. APIC chapter-controlled education remains eligible, and full provider accreditation is not required for every activity; CBIC and APIC point instead to activity-level approval, which may cost a few hundred dollars.⁶

Those clarifications matter. The financial mechanics and the distinction between full provider accreditation and activity-level approval have already been examined in this publication.⁵ Our concern here is different: The clarification arrived after the field had already begun trying to interpret multiple documents that did not say the same thing.

What the CBIC Website Still Shows

The written record is harder to follow than the policy itself. CBIC announced its IPU Provider Approval Request Process in an October 30, 2025, blog post that described a peer-review process and a content standard, but not an Industry Partner accreditation pathway.⁷ Neither did the provider page archived on June 11, 2026. The current page adds one: An Industry Partner activity qualifies only if the partner or an independent provider of record holds authorization to award a continuing education unit (CEU), continuing nursing education (CNE), continuing medical education (CME), or a CBIC-recognized equivalent, and without it, no IPUs are awarded, regardless of scientific content.^3,4 The IPU Criteria Chart still carries a September 1, 2024, date and no Industry Partner pathway,⁸ and the Candidate Handbook and recertification FAQ diverge on how accredited sponsorship is counted.^5,9,10

Two documents added since the commentary sharpen the problem rather than settle it: a chapter education FAQ and a 1-page flyer last updated August 31, 2026.^11,12 The Industry Partner definition treats an entity that sponsors or funds a specific activity as an Industry Partner for that activity, evaluated under the accreditation pathway.¹³ The general FAQ lists accreditation among 3 conditions an industry-funded activity must meet.² The chapter FAQ permits sponsorship as long as the accreditation requirement is met.¹¹ The flyer says funding or sponsorship alone does not trigger that requirement.¹² Four current documents, 2 different answers. The IP who attends that session has no way to know whether the certificate she files will hold up at recertification.

There may be administratively reasonable explanations, but that is why revision dates, change histories, and cross-references matter. No IP should need an Internet Archive search to learn which rules applied on the day of an activity.

Clarification Is Not Yet a Road Map

What the joint APIC and CBIC commentary does not yet provide is a single operational road map showing how funding, speaker employment, content control, product references, venue, and accreditation interact in common situations.

CBIC and APIC say chapter-controlled education remains unaffected when the chapter selects the speaker and controls the content,^6, and the August 31 flyer now supplies guidance with specific examples showing how this applies to both full conferences and single presentations.¹² Chapter leaders still need examples that distinguish unrestricted support from sponsorship that triggers the Industry Partner pathway, which is the very point at which the flyer and the other 3 documents disagree.

The same problem appears for smaller education providers and independent consultants who are not Industry Partners on their own but may accept support for a specific activity. The policy is activity-based.¹³ That means classification may turn on the details of each arrangement. A large organization can send those details to legal, compliance, or an established accredited provider of record. A small practice, startup, or volunteer education chair may have no comparable infrastructure. The direct approval fee may be modest; the cost of uncertainty is not.

That cost is not limited to money. It includes delayed programs, abandoned ideas, fewer speakers, and the safest response to an unclear rule: doing nothing. Those are potential consequences rather than outcomes we claim have occurred, and they are foreseeable enough to deserve attention now.

The Broader Access Question

CBIC and APIC state that free education will remain free and that no one will pay more for the education needed to recertify.⁶ We hope that proves correct. But whether sponsors will continue to offer the same volume and variety of free education is not something a credentialing body can guarantee. Sponsors and educators will make their own decisions based on administrative burden, risk, timing, and perceived value.

Other IPU pathways do exist. CBIC identifies association webinars, conferences, committee leadership, mentorship, infection control risk-assessment training, and several international options.² The question is whether they replace accessible, domain-specific education. A certification in infection prevention and control (CIC) portfolio must span at least 6 of 8 knowledge domains.^9,10 Service and leadership activities may contribute units, but IPs still need substantive education in surveillance, transmission prevention, occupational health, environment of care, and cleaning and sterilization.

The international implications also deserve careful reporting rather than assumption. Access, employer support, professional-association infrastructure, and accepted accreditation pathways vary considerably across countries.

To better understand the impact on international IPs, Carole invited perspectives from IPs in her network. Three volunteer respondents, who practice in the Middle East and parts of Africa, shared their perspectives this month through interviews and a survey. Responses are quoted anonymously with permission. These responses are illustrative and are not intended to represent the views of international IPs broadly.

The responses were not uniform. One said simply, “I don’t really think about the new rule.” Another said she would attend independent consultants’ sessions, whether or not they carried units.

The first was the cost falling on individuals. One respondent put it plainly: “Employers are not willing to invest for our continuous education … because it’s our responsibility to renew our certification … We have to pay from our pocket.” Another said, “I don’t get affordable or free IPUs anywhere right now.” A third described how eligibility shapes what she attends: “My main concern is accessibility … I’m always attending the webinars accredited by CBIC because those are the only ones where I can get the IPUs.”

The second was where product-adjacent expertise will come from. Several described vendor sessions as where they encounter new technologies. As one put it: “I think we need vendors’ help also … they will show the products, then we will be touching those new products available in the market.”

CBIC is right that a session existing to sell a product should not carry units. Where these IPs will instead find education in high-level disinfection and sterile processing is an open question.

What Would Make the Standard Work Better

CBIC does not need to abandon its standard of independence to make the pathway clearer. Several practical steps would strengthen both rigor and confidence (Figure 2).

The last step may be the most important. Individual email exchanges can clarify one activity at a time, but they do not create shared understanding. A public dialogue would allow CBIC to explain the problem it is trying to solve, allow affected groups to describe implementation challenges, and help everyone distinguish genuine educational independence from assumptions about who can be trusted to teach.

Rigor and Access Are Not Competing Goals

The debate should not be reduced to a choice between protecting the credential and preserving access to education. The field needs both. CBIC is right to insist that education carrying IPUs answer to science rather than sales. The people expected to follow that standard are equally right to ask for guidance that is timely, consistent, and usable.

The joint APIC/CBIC commentary is an important clarification, but it should be the beginning of the conversation, not the final word. A policy becomes credible not only because its purpose is sound, but because those governed by it can find it, understand it, and apply it before decisions are made.

Rigor does not require ambiguity. Access does not require lowering standards. What the field needs now is a road map that protects both.

References

1. Martonicz TW. Same expert, different employer: should that change what counts as IPC education? Infection Control Today. August 24, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/same-expert-different-employer-should-change-what-counts-ipc-education-
2. Frequently asked questions: continuing education and IPU requirements. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/CBIC-FAQs-Industry-Partner-IPUs.pdf
3. IPU provider approval requests. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Archived June 11, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20260611192351/https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Recertify/Recertification-by-Continuing-Education/IPU-Provider-Approval-Requests.htm
4. IPU provider approval requests. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Recertify/Recertification-by-Continuing-Education/IPU-Provider-Approval-Requests.htm
5. Jopp D, Dangles J. Protecting the integrity of the credential: what the IPU standard does and does not change. APIC and CBIC commentary. August 27, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/IPU-commentary-APIC-CBIC-Final-Version.pdf
6. Doran B. The new rules of recertification: what CBIC’s industry IPU policy means for you. Infection Control Today. August 26, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/new-rules-recertification-what-cbic-s-industry-ipu-policy-means-you
7. Uricochea G. All about the IPU provider approval process. CBIC Blog. October 30, 2025. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://blog.cbic.org/all-about-ipu-provider-approval-request-process/
8. Infection prevention units criteria chart. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Updated September 1, 2024. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/2024-IPU-Criteria-Chart_V51.pdf
9. Candidate handbook: CIC, LTC-CIP, a-IPC. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Revised January 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Candidate-Handbook.htm
10. Recertification by IPUs FAQs. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Certification-FAQs/Recertification-by-IPUs.htm
11. Frequently asked questions: APIC chapter education. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/Frequently-Asked-Questions_Chapter-IPUs.pdf
12. What APIC chapters need to know about IPUs. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Updated August 31, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/IPU_Flyer_APIC_Chapters__August-31-2026.pdf
13. Industry partner definition. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/Industry-partner-definition-.pdf