Aesthetic Medical Educators Botox Training Review

1. CME Accreditation for MD, DO, NP, PA, RN’s

AMET states that its courses are accredited for AAFP Prescribed Credit through the American Academy of Family Physicians. As of the company’s most recent published statements, three separate AAFP approvals are listed:

• Basic course (“Botulinum Toxin and Dermal Filler Training”): term of approval 03/06/2026 to 03/06/2027
• Hybrid course (“Hybrid-Botulinum Toxin and Dermal Filler Training”): term of approval 02/27/2026 to 02/27/2027
• Advanced course (“Advanced Botulinum Toxin Type A and Dermal Fillers”): term of approval 12/07/2025 to 12/07/2026

AAFP Prescribed Credit is accepted by the American Medical Association as equivalent to AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ for physicians toward the AMA Physician’s Recognition Award. AAFP Prescribed Credit does not carry direct reciprocity for nurses (ANCC), nurse practitioners (AANP), or dentists. State boards may accept AAFP credit toward continuing education requirements through their own acceptance policies, but the activities are not directly designated for those credential types. Like other AAFP-only training companies reviewed on this site, AMET relies solely on the AAFP Prescribed Credit pathway and rightfully does not claim direct ACCME, ANCC, or AANP accreditation through a joint provider.

The approvals are one-year terms requiring annual renewal. Each of the three AAFP approvals above runs for a single year. A buyer attending late in any term year should confirm the approval has been renewed for the specific date they intend to attend. The basic course term (03/06/2026 to 03/06/2027) is the one most commonly relevant, since the basic course is the entry-level offering that is the main subject of these reviews.

The published credit statements are self-reported and should be independently verified. The AAFP Prescribed Credit statement follows a standard required format, and the presence of correctly-worded credit language on a company website does not by itself confirm that the approval is current for a specific course date. The AAFP allows approved providers to list their activities in the AAFP’s public CME search at no additional cost, which provides prospective participants an independent way to confirm an activity’s title, credit hours, and term of approval. When a provider’s activities are not listed in that public search, buyers cannot self-verify the approval and must instead request the current AAFP approval letter directly from the provider for the specific course title and date they intend to attend, and may confirm the activity and term directly with the AAFP. 

The certificate of completion does not state the accrediting body, credit hours, or completion date. A-T.com obtained an AMET Certificate of Completion (participant name redacted) issued for the “Botulinum Toxin and Dermal Filler Training” seminar in 2025. The certificate stated only that the participant “completed to satisfaction” the course and is signed by AMET’s medical director and an unnamed AMET instructor. It does not state the accrediting body (the AAFP is not mentioned), the number of credit hours awarded, the date of completion, or any activity or certificate identification number. A certificate that does not identify the accrediting body and the specific number of credit hours may not be sufficient documentation for a state licensing board, an insurance credentialing entity, or a supervising physician who requires proof of accredited continuing education.  It is unclear if those certificates read any differently in 2026.

Before registering, buyers should confirm in writing: (1) that the specific course date and location they intend to attend is covered by a current AAFP approval, (2) the number of AAFP Prescribed Credit hours awarded for that specific course, (3) whether the hybrid and in-person formats carry the same credit, and (4) whether the certificate of completion they receive will state the accrediting body, course title, completion date, and number of AAFP Prescribed Credit hours in a form their licensing board or credentialing entity will accept.

2. Faculty Qualifications and Transparency

AMET does not list any faculty members or instructor credentials anywhere on its website.

Knowing the qualifications of the person teaching you matters, and so does confirming that your hands-on training occurs in a legally compliant environment in which the instructor is fully licensed to independently provide, in that state, the treatments being taught. Because AMET does not name the instructor assigned to each date and location, a prospective attendee cannot confirm in advance whether the assigned instructor holds an active, independent license in the state where the hands-on training occurs.

This is a substantive concern because of how nursing licensure works across state lines. There are no multi-state NP compact licenses. A nurse practitioner authorized to practice autonomously in one state cannot travel to another state where she is not licensed and function as an NP there, unless a separate in-state medical director approves the good-faith exams and treatment plans for the patients treated during the hands-on session. The same cross-state licensure limitations discussed in our review of similar companies apply here.

If you plan to register for an AMET class, contact AMET first and ask for the name and degree of the instructor assigned to your specific date and location. Then verify, through the medical or nursing board of the state where the class is held, that the instructor holds an active medical or advanced-practice license, can practice independently in that state or has an appropriate in-state medical director, and has experience commensurate with the training being delivered.

The ownership and curriculum oversight of AMET are also relevant to this assessment. Cole Lopez is listed as president of AMET on a publicly available LinkedIn profile that does not indicate a medical or clinical background. Separately, AMET’s certificate of completion is signed by a medical director, identified on a 2025 certificate reviewed by A-T.com as Stanly B. Heckrodt, MD. Dr. Heckrodt’s name does not appear anywhere on AMET’s public website, and his publicly available professional bio does not reference aesthetic medicine or injectable training.  It is unclear if he still has any role as medical director at AMET beyond the date of that 2025 certificate.

Some clinicians prefer training programs whose curriculum is developed and supervised by licensed medical providers actively engaged in aesthetic practice. Prospective students who share that preference may wish to ask AMET which licensed medical providers are responsible for developing and supervising the injectable curriculum, and what role the named medical director plays in that process. As with any training company, and particularly one that does not publish its faculty or clinical leadership, the answers to these questions are worth obtaining in writing before enrolling.

The absence of any faculty information is notable given AMET’s scale. The company lists courses in dozens of cities and states that it has trained over 2,900 medical professionals. A company of that size and reach could readily publish an instructor roster with credentials and experience and the kind of page that would ordinarily help a training company build credibility with prospective students. AMET does not. It publishes no faculty list, names no instructor for any specific date until contacted, and identifies its medical director only on the completion certificate rather than anywhere on its website. A buyer is left unable to learn anything about the qualifications of their instructor in advance, from a company that has the scale to make that information impressive if it chose to.

3. Completeness of the First Level Course

A complete first-level course typically covers the FDA-cleared indications and the commonly taught, well-established off-label indications for both botulinum toxin and dermal filler that a new injector will encounter most often in practice. AMET’s published agendas and model treatment-area lists show that its basic course covers a deliberately limited set of these indications, with many straightforward, accepted, off-label procedures reserved for a separate advanced course at additional cost.

According to AMET’s own model treatment-area descriptions, the basic course hands-on covers botulinum toxin “from the nose up” (forehead lines, frown lines, bunny lines, eyebrow shaping, crow’s feet) and dermal filler in the areas around the mouth (lip lines, lip volume, marionette lines, mouth corners, nasolabial folds).

The advanced course reserves many of the procedures that drive the most patient demand and practice revenue, including, per AMET’s published advanced agenda and model list: masseter/TMJ botulinum toxin, under-eye and periorbital treatment, lip flip, gummy smile correction, neck and DAO treatment, axillary hyperhidrosis, and on the filler side, cheek volume restoration, temple restoration, and chin and jawline contouring.  These neurotoxin areas are not really “advanced” but lower demand and often lower dose designs that carry a lower success rate regardless of the skill of the provider.  To call these “advanced” implies that a provider can get outsized results from these areas due to “advanced” skill levels, which is not substantiated in the literature behind these off-label uses.

The practical effect is that some high demand and straightforward treatments are not included in the basic course. A buyer who wants to offer the procedures most patients request would need to complete both the basic and the advanced course.

Separately, attendee accounts describe a discounted advanced-course offer presented during the basic class itself, requiring a deposit to lock in the discount. New injectors commonly finish a one-day basic course feeling they need more practice before working independently, which is a natural response to limited hands-on time. An advanced-course discount offered at that moment, before the new injector has had time to practice and determine what additional training they actually need, asks for a financial commitment at the point of maximum uncertainty. Attendee accounts indicate these deposits have been treated as non-refundable. Buyers offered an advanced-course deposit during their basic class should confirm in writing whether the deposit is refundable before committing. Prospective students can review public attendee feedback on Yelp and weigh both positive and negative experiences independently.

The basic course tuition is $1,750 and the advanced course tuition is $1,950, for a combined cost of $3,700 across two separate weekends. To obtain hands-on training in the full range of commonly requested botulinum toxin and dermal filler indications, a buyer would need to complete both courses. Buyers should weigh this combined cost and the two-weekend time commitment against what other providers charge for a single first-level course that covers a broader range of indications.

Before registering, buyers should confirm: (1) exactly which botulinum toxin and dermal filler indications are taught hands-on in the basic course, (2) which indications are reserved for the advanced course, (3) the price of both courses and the total cost to obtain training across the full range of common indications, and (4) the refund and transfer terms for any deposit, including any advanced-course deposit offered during the basic class.

One of AMET’s stated hands-on program objectives is to “utilize a HIPAA-compliant EMR software for all patients treated.” Learning a specific electronic medical records system is an unusual objective for a few hours of hands-on injection training. EMR selection is a business decision each provider makes for their own practice, and many compliant options exist; time spent on one particular software during the hands-on session is time not spent on injection technique. A buyer should ask which EMR system is taught, whether learning it is required, and whether that instruction displaces hands-on injection time.

4. Transparency Regarding Hands-On Product Provided in Tuition Cost

AMET does not guarantee how much actual product a participant will inject under supervision. AMET’s FAQ states the company “cannot guarantee a specific number of injections” and that the amount of hands-on training depends on the number of participants and the number of models present and their needs.

AMET’s basic course page states that products and models are “provided by Aesthetic Medical Educators Training at no additional cost to the participants (unless the participant chooses to be a model).” Read together with AMET’s model FAQ — which states that models pay a deposit and a balance based on the amount of product used — this indicates that the participant’s product is “free” because the model patient pays for the product used in their own treatment, not because AMET absorbs the cost. The parenthetical also signals that a participant who wishes to be treated, (or likely who brings a friend or relative to be treated) would incur the model’s costs rather than having that product included in tuition. AMET does not appear to offer a tuition-inclusive option to bring your own model. A participant who specifically wants to practice on a known person, or to follow a specific patient’s results over time, should ask AMET in advance what that would cost and whether it is permitted.

The advanced-course model — in which the model patient pays for the product used in their own treatment — raises the same provider-patient relationship considerations discussed elsewhere below (Section 9). When a patient pays for the product and treatment, a provider-patient relationship is formed, and the participant performing the procedure is the treating provider. If the instructor supervising that procedure is not licensed in the state where the training occurs, the question of who holds clinical responsibility and supervisory authority becomes more complicated. (See the faculty and supervision discussion above.)

AMET also does not list an option for participants to bring their own model, a friend or relative, to receive treatment while the participant practices specific techniques and follows the results afterward. For a participant who wants experience in specific treatment areas, the absence of a bring-your-own-model option who has the areas and degree of difficulty that the participant wishes to treat,  means the available hands-on practice depends entirely on which paid models AMET schedules for that date and what those models consent to.

Public attendee feedback raises additional questions about the hands-on experience, including the participant-to-model ratio and treatment outcomes. Prospective students can review these accounts on Yelp and weigh both positive and negative experiences independently.

If you are considering an AMET training date, call and confirm before registering: (1) the maximum class size for your date, (2) the expected number of models and the participant-to-model ratio, (3) what product is included in tuition and whether any minimum quantity is guaranteed, (4) the name and degree of your assigned instructor, (5) that instructor’s active licensure in the state where the class is held, and (6) the name of the supervising physician if the instructor is an out-of-state PA, NP, or RN.

5. Maximum Hands-On Class Size

AMET states in its FAQ that class size is limited to 10 participants. This is a published cap that a buyer can verify before registering, and AMET deserves credit for stating it plainly.

A 10-participant class with a single instructor is on the larger end of the range among aesthetic training providers, and is larger than the 8-participant cap published by the similar company MedAesthetics Training. Combined with AMET’s policy of not guaranteeing a specific quantity of injectable product per participant, a larger class means the supervised hands-on injection time and the amount of product available per attendee are divided among more people. The amount of one-on-one instruction and actual injection practice any individual receives depends on the number of participants present, the number of models scheduled, and what those models consent to on the day.

For its hybrid format, AMET states the  $1,750 didactic webinar portion is capped at 20 students. The separate hands-on portion remains in person.

Before registering, confirm the expected number of participants and the number of models scheduled for your specific date, so you can estimate the participant-to-model ratio and the hands-on time you can realistically expect.

6. Location Transparency

AMET does not publish the exact training venue address anywhere on its website. There is no street address, no venue name, and no map for any scheduled course date. Course listings identify only the metropolitan area (for example, “Los Angeles” or “Chicago”).

A review of third-party listing sites indicates that AMET courses are typically held in hotels, though only a small fraction of the company’s published dates could be located and confirmed through those outside sources. AMET’s own FAQ confirms the hotel-based model, stating that the company “is not affiliated with the hotels where seminars are held.”

Venue location matters before paying for a course, particularly one with a limited refund window. Metropolitan areas are large, and a class labeled for a major city could be held an hour or more from that city’s airport, downtown, or public transportation.

Before registering, ask AMET for the specific street address of the venue for your date, confirm whether it is a hotel or a clinical facility, and factor travel time and cost from your arrival point into your decision.

7. No Unaccredited Board or Society Claims (but a Membership Upsell Exists)

To AMET’s credit, the company does not sell fake “board certifications,” fellowship titles, or society credentials, and it does not position itself as a governing authority for an aesthetics specialty. This matters because aesthetic injection is not a recognized medical specialty with its own board, and no training company can confer specialty status. Training is training. A certificate of completion documents that a course was attended; it is not a credential that elevates a provider’s scope or authority. On that distinction, AMET does not overreach.

However, AMET does sell a paid membership, which is a recurring upsell layered on top of course tuition. The AMET membership is priced from $999 to $1,700 depending on term length (one or two years), reduced to $699 or $1,199 when purchased together with a seminar registration, and can be paid in full or secured with a $500 deposit. Advertised benefits include a free follow-up course, 25% off additional courses, a 15% colleague referral discount, semi-annual advertising in the AMET newsletter, and a free training DVD.

None of these benefits are required to maintain any training status or to use a completed certificate. A membership is a loyalty and discount program, not a credential. Notably, the existence of these benefits raises a fair question: if AMET is able to offer a free follow-up course and discounted additional training, the company is clearly capable of delivering more complete instruction. A more robust basic course that covered a broader range of indications up front would reduce the need for follow-up training in the first place. The membership’s value proposition depends, in part, on the basic course leaving attendees wanting more.

The “free follow-up course” benefit also deserves scrutiny on its own terms. A repeat of the same one-day course is most valuable to an attendee who had a good first experience, and least valuable to one who finished feeling under-trained. For the latter, repeating the same course from the same provider is unlikely to fill the gaps. And no follow-up course is truly free: the attendee still pays for travel, lodging, time away from practice, and lost clinic revenue. A waived tuition fee does not waive the real cost of attending again.

A buyer evaluating the membership should treat it as a prepayment for future discounts and perks, and should calculate whether the discounts on courses they actually intend to take would exceed the membership fee. The multiple price points and the deposit-versus-full-payment structure make the true cost and value harder to assess at a glance.

Before buying a membership, confirm the total cost for your chosen term, which specific benefits are included, whether the free follow-up course has any location, scheduling, or expiration limitations, and whether the membership fee is refundable.

8. Blended Online plus Live Learning Environment

AMET offers a “hybrid” version of its Botox and dermal filler course. In the hybrid format, the didactic lecture is delivered by a separate live webinar during the week, and the in-person Saturday session is hands-on only. According to AMET’s published hybrid agenda, the Saturday is divided into two shifts — a morning toxin/filler hands-on session with model appointments from 8:30 to 11:00, and an afternoon toxin/filler session with model appointments from 1:30 to 4:00.  Attendees can choose AM or PM.

The webinar appears to be live, not on-demand. AMET describes the didactic lecture as a live webinar offered several times during the week, with a live instructor and Q&A. A buyer who needs to study on their own schedule, or to review the material repeatedly before and after the hands-on day, should confirm whether any on-demand version exists or whether attendance is limited to scheduled live sessions.

The split-shift structure and instructor staffing raise a throughput question. AMET’s hybrid marketing states that the format offers smaller class sizes and that attendees “may have more than one instructor.” However, the word “may” indicates that a second instructor is conditional, not guaranteed, so a buyer cannot assume any particular instructor-to-attendee ratio. With a stated class limit of 10 and a published agenda that divides each Saturday into a morning and an afternoon hands-on shift, a single instructor could be supervising up to 10 attendees in a shift, and more total attendees can cycle through one venue in a day than in a single-session format. A buyer should ask how many attendees are scheduled in their shift, how many instructors will be present, and how many total attendees the instructor or instructors will see across the full day, to estimate the actual one-on-one attention and injection time per person.

The credit-hour coverage of the hybrid format is unclear. AMET’s FAQ lists a separate AAFP approval for a “Hybrid” course, distinct from the basic and advanced approvals, with a stated term of approval. However, neither the FAQ nor the hybrid course page states how many AAFP Prescribed Credit hours the hybrid format carries, or whether that credit covers the online webinar portion in addition to the in-person hands-on shift. The hybrid course page carries no credit statement specific to the hybrid activity. This matters because a provider can only claim the credit hours an activity is actually approved for, and a compressed in-person hands-on shift of roughly two and a half hours plus a separate webinar should be reflected honestly in the credit total. A buyer should confirm directly with AMET, and may confirm with the AAFP, exactly how many credit hours the hybrid format carries and whether the webinar portion is included.

A well-designed blended program integrates accredited online study with the live hands-on session so attendees arrive prepared and can review afterward. AMET has the pieces of such a program but does not clearly present, on the hybrid course page itself, how the credit is allocated between the online and in-person portions or how many attendees move through each hands-on shift.

Before registering for a hybrid or webinar option, confirm in writing: (1) whether the webinar is live-only or available on demand, (2) the number of attendees scheduled in your hands-on shift and across the full day, (3) the exact number of AAFP Prescribed Credit hours the hybrid format carries, and (4) whether the online webinar portion is included in those approved credit hours.

9. The Risk of Paid Models at the Live Training

This section addresses the single most significant structural risk associated with the AMET training model. AMET’s hands-on training is conducted on paid model patients rather than on volunteer educational models or on attendees’ own established patients. This business model creates a chain of legal and clinical risk that falls disproportionately on the in-state attendee performing the procedure, not on the company or on its instructors. The same structural risk is present at a similar company reviewed on this site; the two operate their hands-on training the same way.

The provider-patient relationship problem

AMET recruits members of the public to receive discounted cosmetic treatment during its courses. Per AMET’s model FAQ, models place a deposit and pay a balance “based upon the amount of product used,” in cash or by credit card on the day of the seminar. When a patient pays a fee in exchange for an injectable cosmetic procedure, a formal provider-patient relationship is created between the patient and whoever performs the procedure. In a hands-on training course, the procedure is performed by the trainee, not by the instructor. The trainee is the licensed clinician administering a prescription medication on a paying patient. The trainee’s state license is invoked, the trainee’s professional liability coverage (if it covers training-context procedures at all) is implicated, and the patient’s recourse for any complication runs to the trainee as the treating provider of record.

This is structurally different from a volunteer educational model relationship, in which the participant has consented to being treated as part of an educational exercise rather than as a paying clinical patient.

The cross-state licensure problem

As discussed in the faculty section above, AMET does not name the instructor assigned to each date and location. A prospective attendee cannot confirm in advance whether the assigned instructor holds an active, independent license in the state where the hands-on training occurs. There are no multi-state nurse practitioner compact licenses; a nurse practitioner authorized to practice autonomously in one state cannot function as an NP in another state unless a separate in-state medical director approves the good-faith exams and treatment plans for the patients treated. If the instructor supervising a trainee’s procedure is not licensed in the state where the training occurs, the question of who holds clinical responsibility and supervisory authority becomes more complicated, and the in-state trainee performing the injection carries the exposure.

The follow-up care problem

Aesthetic injection complications, including vascular events, nodules, delayed inflammatory reactions, and adverse cosmetic outcomes, can present days to weeks after the procedure. A traveling, hotel-based training course leaves no local provider with responsibility for follow-up, no facility holding the patient’s records, and a paying patient who has paid for an outcome and may now require further care. The trainee who performed the procedure has typically returned to their own state and has no continuing relationship with the paying model. AMET’s model FAQ states that results cannot be guaranteed and that a dissatisfied model may contact AMET, which will “attempt to rectify the situation” — language that does not establish a defined continuity-of-care pathway.

The expectations problem

Volunteer educational models have expectations consistent with the educational nature of the encounter. Paying patients have expectations consistent with a clinical service for which they paid: a specific outcome, professional follow-up, and recourse if the outcome disappoints. The expectations gap increases the likelihood of complaints, board reports, or civil claims following a treatment that did not meet the paying patient’s expectations, and those consequences fall on the trainee as the treating provider of record, not on the company that operated the training.

No option to bring your own model

AMET’s course page states that products and models are provided “at no additional cost to the participants (unless the participant chooses to be a model).” AMET does not appear to offer a tuition-inclusive option to bring your own model — a friend or relative whom the attendee could treat under their own local clinical relationship and follow afterward. A participant who would prefer to practice on a known person, within their own state of licensure and with continuity of care available locally, should confirm whether that is permitted and at what cost. The split AM/PM hands-on shifts described in the hybrid format also mean the pool of paid models is scheduled and rotated by AMET; the attendee has little control over who they treat or which procedures those models consent to.

Public feedback

Publicly available reviews from individuals who participated in or modeled for AMET courses bear on questions of supervision, treatment planning, complication response, hands-on time, and refund practices. Prospective students can review these accounts on Yelp and the Better Business Bureau and weigh both positive and negative experiences independently.

Before registering, confirm in writing

• Who will be listed as the treating provider of record on the patient consent form
• Whether the assigned instructor is actively licensed in the state where the training occurs
• Whether the instructor holds the credential necessary under state law to supervise the trainee’s procedure on a paying patient
• Who holds ultimate clinical responsibility if a model experiences a complication during or after the course
• What follow-up care arrangements exist if a model develops a complication days or weeks later, and whether the company or any local provider is contractually responsible
• Whether your professional liability insurance covers procedures performed during paid training, and whether the company carries its own policy naming the trainee as covered
• Whether you may instead bring your own established patient or a friend or relative as your model, and at what cost

10. General Transparency and Accessibility

The most telling transparency signal on AMET’s website is its own testimonials page. As of this review, it displays five testimonials, the most recent dated January 2019 — more than seven years old — for a company that lists courses in dozens of cities and states that it has trained over 2,900 professionals. The page also offers a list of past attendees willing to serve as references, but these too date to the company’s earlier years. To AMET’s credit, this material reads as genuine rather than manufactured: the testimonials are named, dated, and modest in tone. But genuine is not the same as current. A buyer in 2026 reading testimonials from 2017 to 2019 is evaluating social proof that predates AMET’s current hybrid course format, current pricing, and current accreditations. The company does not appear to display any recent testimonials from attendees of the courses it sells today.

The broader transparency problem is how difficult AMET makes it to understand what you are actually buying. The pricing leads with a low headline figure, but the structure behind it — the separation of the basic and advanced courses, the webinar-plus-hands-on hybrid format, the AM and PM hands-on shifts, the membership add-on, and the way CME credit is allocated across online and in-person time is scattered across multiple pages and, in several places, not stated at all. Determining what a “hybrid” course actually involves, what it costs in total, and how many credit hours it carries required reading several pages closely and cross-referencing the FAQ, the course tabs, and the model pages. A prospective buyer should not have to reverse-engineer the product from fragments. When the structure of an offering is this hard to assemble from the seller’s own materials, the buyer cannot make a fully informed decision before paying.

Instructor identity is a specific and recurring gap. AMET does not name faculty on its website and does not identify the instructor assigned to each date and location until a prospective attendee calls to ask. A buyer cannot identify, verify, or research the person who will be teaching them before paying.

Public reviews and complaint history

AMET’s third-party review record is mixed and worth reading directly. A cluster of more recent positive reviews, many with a similar format and tone, sits alongside older critical reviews from multiple distinct reviewers dating back several years. The critical accounts raise recurring themes including variable teaching quality, course cancellations with limited notice, and disputes over non-refundable deposits. The company’s responses to formal complaints can be read on the Better Business Bureau profile; the tone of those responses is itself informative. Prospective students should read both the positive and the critical feedback on the Better Business Bureau and Yelp and weigh them independently.

Final recommendation

AMET is among the lower-priced options at first glance, and for some buyers in remote areas a nearby AMET date may be the most practical choice. But the headline price is not the whole price, and the low figure is easier to act on than the structure behind it is to understand. Before registering, do the work to confirm the total cost across the courses you will actually need, the credit hours you can legitimately claim, the identity and state licensure of your instructor, and the real hands-on time you can expect in your shift.

There may be better alternatives even if they require longer travel: a smaller group, an instructor who is named and verifiably licensed in the state where the course is held, injectable product included in tuition in a stated amount, and full CME credit that clearly covers both the online and in-person portions of the course. For a decision that affects your license, your liability, and your competence on paying patients for years afterward, the difference in tuition is small relative to what is at stake.