Dear Editor, I found the article “Contemporary Acupuncture” in the December 2007 issue of Canadian Chiropractor to be somewhat misleading. In the section on “CME Certifi cation” the writer stated that “the McMaster Contemporary Acupuncture Program provides 300 CME hours, signifi - cantly above the 200 recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).” However, CME hours are not actually mentioned in the WHO Guidelines of Basic Training and Safety in Acupuncture. If one were to read further into the WHO document, one would fi nd that the recommended acupuncture training curriculum is clearly laid out. When comparing the McMaster curriculum to the WHO recommended training, it would be obvious that the McMaster Contemporary Acupuncture Program is not “signifi cantly above” what is recommended by the WHO in content, or number of hours. Furthermore the insurance companies, and the acupuncture community, are asking for “in class/contact” hours of training to qualify as acupuncture providers. Chiropractors have been fl ocking to short acupuncture programs of 100 hours or less that are credited for 300 CME hours and this has led to delisting of chiropractic from insurance eligibility. Fortunately Acupuncture Council of Ontario members who have completed more than 200 actual hours of training have been spared the delisting in some instances. Dear Editor, Thank you for the opportunity to clarify some inexactitudes regarding accreditation and qualifi cation of chiropractors for acupuncture re-imbursement in the province of Ontario In our article “Contemporary Acupuncture” published in the December 2007 issue of Canadian Chiropractor, we had accurately stated that the McMaster Contemporary Acupuncture Program provides credits in excess to the training recommended by the WHO document published in 1999. Dr. Chiu rightly states that the WHO document does not recommend CME credits, but fails to explain that there is also no mention of contact-hours or class-hours and that the document simply recommends “...a minimum of 200 hours of formal training for qualifi ed physicians (and certain other graduates) who wish to become competent in acupuncture as a form of therapy in modern western clinical practice. We would like to point out that the standard of postgraduate “formal training” for physicians in Canada, the USA, and other western countries is not the contact-hour but the CME category “one credit hour.” Formal training is not based on contact time but on the intelligent design and selection of the best means to achieve a set of welldefi ned learning outcome objectives. Some objectives can be accomplished through self-directed activities while others require direct instruction in a small group environment. Spending time in the same room is not, for physicians or for chiropractors, a valid measurement of the educational value of an academic activity. That is why universities and medical associations do not use this metric. We share Dr. Chiu’s concern about the training of chiropractors who provide acupuncture services in Ontario, The validity of the McMaster program has been independently assessed by the McMaster Health Sciences offi ce of Continuing Education as well as by the McMaster University Department of Anesthesia. Finally, we need to comment on any concerns regarding qualifi cations of chiropractors in Ontario for insurance reimbursement. As part of the provisions of Bill 50, the CCO has now been established as the only governing body responsible for the Standard of Practice for chiropractors practicing acupuncture in the province of Ontario. As such, the CCO has stated repeatedly, and now published in a document available on its web site, that ACO certifi cation or membership is no longer necessary for chiropractors in Ontario to provide acupuncture services. Therefore, we fi nd highly disturbing the unfortunate fact that some insurance companies in Ontario may continue to discriminate chiropractors with valid CCO approved acupuncture training against colleagues who hold ACO membership. We believe that to endorse and promote this doctrine is contrary to our professional standards and interest.