Which is better for an international meeting

RSS
A reader recently e-mailed this to me: "We are currently exploring international opportunities with countries with which we already have established ties. One question that has come up is the pros and cons of working directly with a country and its CME governing body or getting international credit through the AMA. Do you know of any articles or reports that might address the question?" Well, I dug around in the archives, and came up with a few things on AMA and global rules (here and here). This article on European CME standards, which I wrote in 2003, also might have some useful info, but I think it really depends on who your attendees will be. I seem to remember several people who plan international programs with mostly U.S.-based attendees like to get AMA credit; if they're mostly non-U.S.-based, they go with the country's CME governing provider. I haven't checked to see what's happened lately, but I'm guessing that, depending on where the meeting was to be held, AMA credit is a pretty safe bet, since most attendees will be able to get credit under their local system through reciprocity with the AMA. I'm not sure how rigorous the rules are for other countries' governing bodies, but my guess would be the AMA is about the strictest of any, and should be good for most countries. I also just found this online resource about CME credit in different countries, which looks pretty useful.

But none of this really answers her question. I'm hoping you can. Please e-mail me or drop a comment in the "comments" area below if you have any advice or suggestions on which is the better route to go.

Please or Register to post comments.

Blog Archive

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×