The Medication Access and Training Expansion Improvement (MATE Improvement) Act clarifies and broadens which professional organizations and educational programs count for the training requirement tied to prescribing controlled substances by amending section 303 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823). The bill redesignates an existing subsection and inserts a list of additional professional associations and accreditors—among them the American Academy of Family Physicians, several podiatric and dental bodies, optometry, pharmacy organizations, and pharmacy schools—into the statutory text that governs recognized training curricula and accrediting entities.
This change matters because DEA registration and state oversight of prescribed controlled substances often hinge on whether a prescriber completed an approved training curriculum. By naming more organizations and explicitly including accredited schools of pharmacy, the bill widens the set of curricula that satisfy federal training expectations, and its retroactive effective date could validate training completed since late 2022.
Compliance officers, health system credentialers, and professional schools will need to map their programs to the newly recognized standards and anticipate operational questions about equivalency and recordkeeping.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 21 U.S.C. 823 to add specific professional organizations and accrediting bodies to the statutory list that defines acceptable training for prescribers of controlled substances. It also clarifies language around curricula and explicitly recognizes accredited schools of pharmacy.
Who It Affects
Primary impacts fall on prescribers (family physicians, podiatrists, dentists, optometrists, pharmacists, and advanced practice nurses), medical and pharmacy schools, professional associations that set curricula, DEA registrants, and the agencies that verify prescriber training. Credentialing offices and continuing‑education providers will be directly affected.
Why It Matters
The statute currently guides which trainings satisfy federal expectations for controlled‑substance prescribers; expanding the list changes which organizations’ curricula are automatically considered acceptable. That affects registration compliance, continuing education strategy, and institutional policies about prescriber onboarding and privileging.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Congress instructs through statute which professional bodies and curricula count as acceptable training for clinicians who prescribe controlled substances. This bill revises that statutory list so that additional mainstream medical, dental, podiatric, optometry, nursing, and pharmacy organizations are explicitly named as sources of approved curricula and accreditation.
Practically, the change means that a course, curriculum, or credential issued under the auspices of one of the newly listed organizations should be treated the same as those previously enumerated for the purposes of federal controlled‑substance training requirements.
Mechanically, the text redesignates an internal subsection of section 303 and inserts the names of organizations into two related subparagraphs that govern (1) which professional organizations’ curricula count and (2) which accreditors or schools can be relied on when determining sufficiency of training. The bill adds the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Podiatric Medical Association, the Academy of General Dentistry, the American Optometric Association, and the Council on Podiatric Medical Education to the curriculum side, and it adds the American Pharmacists Association, the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, the American Academy of Nursing, and accredited schools of pharmacy to the accreditor/education side.The text also inserts clarifying punctuation and phrasing to avoid ambiguity—changing comma and conjunction placement and spelling out that podiatric medicine and pharmacy education are included—so that the list reads as inclusive rather than illustrative.
The bill applies these changes retroactively to December 29, 2022, which has the immediate legal effect of treating qualifying trainings delivered since that date as meeting the statutory standard. That retroactivity raises implementation items for registrars, credentialers, and potentially for clinicians who sought exemption or remediation based on older interpretations of the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill redesignates the second subsection labeled (l) in 21 U.S.C. 823 as subsection (m), shifting internal statutory numbering.
It adds the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Podiatric Medical Association, Academy of General Dentistry, American Optometric Association, and the Council on Podiatric Medical Education to the list of organizations whose curricula count as acceptable training.
It adds the American Pharmacists Association, the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education, the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, and the American Academy of Nursing to the list of recognized accreditors/organizations related to training.
The amendment explicitly recognizes accredited schools of pharmacy as qualifying educational providers whose curricula can satisfy the training requirement for controlled‑substance prescribers.
The bill makes these amendments effective retroactively, stating they take effect as if enacted on December 29, 2022.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the name the Medication Access and Training Expansion Improvement Act (MATE Improvement Act). This is a standard drafting device but signals the bill’s focus on access and training for prescribers of controlled substances.
Renumbering of an internal subsection
The bill renumbers a previously designated subsection (l) as subsection (m) in 21 U.S.C. 823. Renumbering is technical but important because subsequent insertions target subsection (m)(1); anyone implementing the statute must map older citations to the new numbering to avoid administrative errors.
Adds family medicine, podiatry, dentistry, and optometry to recognized curriculum sources
This provision inserts the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Podiatric Medical Association, the Academy of General Dentistry, and the American Optometric Association into the subclause that identifies professional organizations whose curricula satisfy the training requirement. It also adds the Council on Podiatric Medical Education as an explicitly recognized accrediting council for podiatric education. Operationally, hospitals, state licensing boards, and DEA‑related credentialing systems should accept curricula issued or certified by these organizations without requiring additional validation under federal controlled‑substance training rules.
Recognizes pharmacy and nursing organizations and schools of pharmacy
This subsection expands the list of accreditors and education‑provider categories to include the American Pharmacists Association, the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, the American Academy of Nursing, and accredited schools of pharmacy. That explicitly brings pharmacy education—both professional associations and accredited schools—into the statutory circle of recognized training providers, which affects continuing‑education providers and academic institutions that certify prescriber training.
Retroactive effective date to December 29, 2022
The bill states that these amendments take effect as if enacted on December 29, 2022. That retroactivity can validate curricula and certifications issued after that date under the newly named organizations and may affect ongoing credentialing disputes or administrative decisions made in the interim.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Family physicians and their professional society (American Academy of Family Physicians) — their residency and continuing‑education curricula now appear explicitly in the federal list of accepted controlled‑substance training sources, simplifying credentialing.
- Podiatrists, podiatric educators, and the Council on Podiatric Medical Education — the statute now names podiatric organizations and the podiatry accreditor, reducing ambiguity about whether podiatric training satisfies federal requirements.
- Pharmacy schools and pharmacists — inclusion of ACPE, the American Pharmacists Association, and accredited schools of pharmacy recognizes pharmacy education as directly relevant to prescriber training for controlled substances, which benefits pharmacists involved in collaborative practice and academic programs.
- Dental and optometry professionals and accrediting bodies — the Academy of General Dentistry and American Optometric Association join the list, making their curricula presumptively acceptable for prescribers in those fields.
- Patients and health systems — by broadening recognized training sources, the bill can increase clinician access to compliant training options and reduce administrative delays in onboarding prescribers, potentially improving access to care.
Who Bears the Cost
- Medical, nursing, and allied health programs that currently lack alignment with the newly named organizations — they may need to revise curricula, seek new partnerships, or pursue additional accreditation to ensure their training is treated as compliant.
- Continuing‑education vendors and credentialing offices — these entities must update records, verification processes, and guidance to reflect the expanded statutory list and to document that trainings meet the statutory standard.
- DEA and federal/state credentialing administrators — implementing the change and reconciling historical records against the retroactive effective date will add administrative burden and may require guidance or rulemaking to ensure consistent application.
- Smaller specialty organizations not listed — groups that previously filled a de facto role in certifying training may see reduced influence and face pressure to seek formal recognition or partnerships, creating competitive and administrative costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between broadened inclusion—recognizing more professional organizations and pharmacy programs to improve access and clarity—and the need for a uniform, enforceable baseline of training quality. Expanding the list reduces gatekeeping and administrative ambiguity, but without objective curriculum standards it risks inconsistent training quality and variable enforcement across registrars and credentialing bodies.
The bill clarifies who counts as an acceptable source of controlled‑substance prescriber training by naming specific professional organizations and accreditors, but it does not lay out objective curriculum standards, hours, or competency measures. That leaves significant discretion to credentialers and regulators to decide whether a course from one of the newly named bodies actually meets the qualitative standard they expect.
In practice, institutions will need to develop internal equivalency processes to compare curricula across organizations with different formats and learning objectives.
Retroactive application to December 29, 2022 simplifies some compliance questions (training delivered after that date may now qualify) but raises others: will agencies re‑open past denials or enforcement actions, or will they treat the change as prospective for administrative purposes? The statute’s naming approach also invites further requests for inclusion from other professional societies; the law provides no statutory test for admission to the list.
Finally, while naming pharmacy education increases interdisciplinary parity, it risks fragmenting the baseline for what constitutes sufficient training unless accompanied by harmonized competency expectations or inter‑professional standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.