The New Rules of Recertification: What CBIC’s Industry IPU Policy Means for You

Author disclosure: Brenna Doran, PhD, MA, ACC, CIC, AL-CIP, is an independent infection prevention consultant, coach, and educator who develops continuing education content and is a CIC certificant who recertifies through IPUs. She is therefore directly affected by the policy described here. No vendor funded, reviewed, or influenced this article.

An infection preventionist (IP) colleague called me last month with an idea we have both kicked around for years. She left her role in acute care infection prevention for an industry partner role last year. She lamented that she continues to see the same educational gaps we all do and wanted to build something to close a few of them: a short, evidence-based webinar series for IPs who cannot always get to a national conference. Practical sessions. Real content. Her company would cover the cost, the way vendors have long underwritten free education for the field.

Her approach included ensuring each session provided infection prevention units (IPUs). IPs certified through the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) may recertify through continuing education; a session that does not offer IPUs does not count. What stopped her in her tracks was a policy change she found by accident. CBIC announced its IPU provider approval process in a blog post in October 2025.¹ (Editor’s note: There were no social media posts on the change that I could find.) The Industry Partner requirements reshaped who can offer those units that apply to activities held on or after June 29, 2026.²

Neither announcement reached her, and a blog post (without the details but including many links) is easy to miss. The credit was no longer simply hers to give.

The New Criteria: What Triggers the Industry-Partner Route?

Start with why this change matters. A certified IP (CIC) recertifies by earning at least 40 units every 5 years across at least 6 of the 8 examination domains, or by sitting the exam again.^3,4 At least 20 of the 40 must be sponsored through an accredited organization or a state licensing board. ³ IPUs are the primary recertification path of this field, so the question of how they are approved is not merely academic.

Yet the path is now narrower than it first appears. Under CBIC’s definition, an activity falls under the industry-partner pathway when a commercial entity (a manufacturer, distributor, vendor, or supplier of products or services tied to infection prevention) does any one of 3 things for that specific activity: funds or sponsors it, develops or directs its content, or has its products promoted within it.⁵ The test is who funds and has control of the content. Not the topic. Not the speaker's expertise.

What the Pathway Requires Now

Here is what that pathway requires, as I currently understand it. For a funded education session to grant IPUs, the industry partner or the independent continuing education provider of record must already hold current accreditation to award CEUs, CNEs, CMEs, or another recognized equivalent. The session must stay purely scientific, with no promotion before, during, or after. The sponsor may not pick the speaker, set the topic, or shape the materials. And the speaker may not be an employee of the industry partner.⁵ The IPU Committee vets each submission through peer review, and approval attaches to the specific activity, not the organization.⁶

Note where the path detours. An IP who runs a consulting, coaching, or writing practice, as I do, is not an industry partner simply because they have vendor clients.⁵ If that IP develops and delivers an activity without vendor funding or promotion, it is judged on scientific merit, not accreditation standards.⁵ Charging a fee does not change that; a consultant may be paid and still grant IPUs.² Funding alone is not disqualifying either. Sponsored activities are also not disqualified; they must follow the more comprehensive accreditation pathway.⁵

The Chapter Exemption: Why the Venue Matters

Next, consider the imbalance that will determine the policy's real-world impact. APIC chapters do not have to submit the approval form at all. Chapter conferences, webinars, and standard chapter activities in infection prevention and control are exempt from the submission process. These activities are eligible as long as the chapter selects the speaker and controls the content.⁶

That exemption has a boundary worth naming. CBIC has clarified that industry partners can still present at the APIC national conference. Still, the same IPU criteria apply to their activities there, even though CBIC does not determine the conference's speakers or content.² Local chapter activity is exempt. An industry-partner session on the national stage is not.

Let’s pause for a minute. Consider the inherent conflict of the chapter exemption. When a company hosts its own webinar, industry partner dollars trigger the accreditation pathway. However, those same dollars are welcome at a chapter meeting, where a vendor can sponsor the event, and the session still qualifies for IPUs. However, the true differentiator is not the funding source, but the venue and control. The speaker rule does not travel with it. An industry-employed educator may still present at a chapter meeting, but that session does not earn IPUs.² CBIC's guidance draws the line at control: Industry may support chapter education, but the chapter, not the sponsor, selects the speaker and owns the content.⁵

This is where I stopped and read it twice. CBIC is a certifying body, not a publisher of content, and its stated aim is to hold vendor-funded education to the same independence standards that accredited providers already apply, rather than judging each vendor activity on a case-by-case basis.² Its tie to APIC is also structural: APIC is the sole corporate member of CBIC and nominates its directors, even as CBIC governs certification through a separate board and budget.^7,8 CBIC’s own candidate handbook describes CBIC as a subsidiary of APIC that is independent and separate from any other infection control-related organization.⁹ Rather than reviewing every slide from every sponsor, it relies on the chapter to hold the separation that it asks commercial providers to demonstrate through accreditation.

Behind the Paywall: The Real Price of Third-Party Accreditation

For industry partners wanting to offer IPU-eligible education outside local APIC chapter meetings, the path runs directly through accreditation, and it is not cheap.

One key structural rule governs eligibility: Either the industry partner or the continuing education provider of record must hold the accreditation to award credit. However, under the Standards for Integrity and Independence enforced by the ANCC and ACCME, companies whose primary business involves developing or marketing health care products are ineligible for accredited provider status.¹⁰

As a result, the commercial vendor funding the education cannot hold the accreditation itself; it must route the activity through an independent accredited provider of record. Someone in the delivery chain must hold accredited status, and it usually cannot be the sponsor. Figure 1 outlines an example of what that accreditation costs.

Bear in mind that these figures represent provider-level accreditation. The rule does not mandate that the sponsor become an accredited provider. It requires only that an entity within the chain possesses the authority to award credit.

Less expensive options do exist:

• Per-activity approval (ANCC): A single offering can be submitted to an accredited approver for as little as $200, approving for 2 years of repeated delivery.^15,16
• State boards: At least one state board approves providers for around $750 across their entire course catalog.¹⁷

While these options lower the barrier below 5 figures, the costs are rarely one-and-done. Per-activity fees recur with every new offering and stack directly on top of CBIC’s individual activity submission requirements and 30-business-day review window.⁶ For anyone producing a monthly educational series, the "budget" route quickly becomes costly and administratively heavy.

Doesn’t This Align With CBIC Practice Already in Use?

Two things complicate the claim that this aligns CBIC with practice already in use. Accredited approvers do not review or approve commercial entities directly, preventing industry partners from holding accreditation themselves.¹⁸ Those approvers do allow a vendor-employed clinician to present on topics unrelated to the product. CBIC’s definition document does not.⁵ Its own frequently asked questions document states the opposite, that employment alone does not trigger the requirements where the speaker presents independently developed content unrelated to the employer or its products.²

“A speaker's employment by an Industry Partner does not, by itself, trigger these requirements where the speaker is presenting independently developed content unrelated to that organization's products or services and is not presenting in a representative capacity for that organization.”²

As it currently reads, CBIC is stricter than the standard it says it is adopting. “This revision aligns CBIC's IPU approval process with established best practice among peer health care credentialing bodies."⁵

Finally, you cannot budget for what is not defined. I have been unable to locate a published list of the accrediting bodies CBIC accepts, and its guidance on confirming accreditation offers no nursing equivalent to the ACCME directory.³ As a result, providers weighing these pathways currently have no official confirmation of which accreditation purchases will count.

The Bottom Line: Who Will Pay for "Free" Education Now?

Put the pieces together, and the policy reads less like a paperwork update and more like a structural shift in how infection prevention education gets funded.

1. For large medical device or pharmaceutical companies, the new requirements represent a manageable cost rather than a true barrier. While a company cannot hold accredited provider status or place its own employees at the podium, it can hire an accredited provider of record, relinquish content control, and continue underwriting education. The local APIC chapter route also remains open, allowing sponsorships to continue reaching IPs who are earning credits.
2. For veteran IPs working in industry roles, the restriction is specific yet significant. When their employer funds or sponsors an educational session, ties the material to its products, or has them present on its behalf, they cannot serve as the speaker for IPU-eligible credit.

However, independently developed education offered entirely on their own account and unrelated to their employer or their products remains unaffected.^2,5 The restriction targets vendor-controlled commercial content, not their clinical expertise.

1. For independent educators and consultants, the landscape is more workable than initially feared. If an educator develops content independently without vendor funding or commercial promotion, those sessions qualify for IPUs under standard criteria without third-party accreditation, regardless of whether the session is free or paid^.2,5 What changes is the underlying business model of free education.

Historically, vendor sponsorships allowed consultants to offer free webinars while still getting compensated for their development time. Keeping vendor funding now pushes the event into the costly accreditation pathway. Eliminating sponsorship allows independent educators to proceed under standard criteria, but passing the cost along may mean charging attendees directly.

Ultimately, the question is not whether educators will be compensated, but who will foot the bill: the vendor, as in the past, or the IP in the seat.

Beyond the Checklist: What Happens to the Education We Relied On?

This policy update affects the free, on-demand education that populated many recertification portfolios.

CBIC maintains that recertification has never required paid vendor courses, noting that free or low-cost IPUs remain accessible through professional association webinars, conferences, committee service, mentorship, and risk-assessment training.² From CBIC’s perspective, the update safeguards scientific objectivity rather than restricting access.²

CBIC is right that free IPUs still exist. Yet the question remains: When practical, on-demand education moves behind a paywall or compliance barrier, who ultimately pays the price? Recertification loses its value if it becomes just an exercise in checking a box. IPs need accessible, high-value education that sharpens their thinking and elevates daily practice. If this policy narrows access to relevant learning, meeting the recertification standard risks becoming an administrative chore rather than genuine professional growth.

References

1. Uricochea G. All about the IPU provider approval process. CBIC Blog. October 30, 2025. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://blog.cbic.org/all-about-ipu-provider-approval-request-process/

2. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Frequently asked questions: continuing education and IPU requirements. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/CBIC-FAQs-Industry-Partner-IPUs.pdf

3. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. CIC recertification by IPUs FAQs. Accessed August 25, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Certification-FAQs/Recertification-by-IPUs.htm

4. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Recertification by continuing education: infection prevention units (IPUs) criteria chart. Updated September 1, 2024. Accessed August 25, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/2024-IPU-Criteria-Chart_V51.pdf

5. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Industry partner definition. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/Industry-partner-definition-.pdf

6. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. IPU provider approval requests. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Recertify/Recertification-by-Continuing-Education/IPU-Provider-Approval-Requests.htm

7. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. About CBIC. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/About-CBIC.htm

8. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Policies and Procedures Manual 2025-2026. CBIC; 2025. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/2025-Files/PP-Manual-2025-2026.pdf

9. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Candidate Handbook: CIC, LTC-CIP, a-IPC. Revised January 2026. Accessed August 25, 2026. https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Candidate-Handbook.htm

10. American Nurses Credentialing Center. The application process. American Nurses Association. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/accreditation/ncpd/the-application-process/

11. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. 2026-2027 ACCME accreditation fees. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://accme.org/resource/accme-accreditation-fee-schedule-2026-2027/

12. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. Expectations and eligibility. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://accme.org/about-accreditation/expectations-eligibility/

13. American Nurses Credentialing Center. Accreditation fees. American Nurses Association. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/accreditation/ncpd/accreditation-fees/

14. International Accreditors for Continuing Education and Training. Frequently asked questions. Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.iacet.org/ce-t-accreditation/frequently-asked-questions/

15. American Nurses Credentialing Center. Frequently asked questions: accreditation. American Nurses Association. Accessed August 25, 2026. https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/accreditation/ncpd/faqs/

16. North Carolina Nurses Association. Individual educational activity process. Accessed August 25, 2026. https://www.ncnurses.org/education/teach/individual-educational-activity-process/

17. California Board of Registered Nursing. Continuing education provider fact sheet and application. Accessed August 25, 2026. https://rn.ca.gov/pdfs/applicants/cep-app.pdf

18. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses. CNE contact hours application: CNE approval process. Accessed August 25, 2026. https://www.aorn.org/education/education-for-individuals/credentialing/cne-approval-process