I support the proposal to increae the number of required hours and firmly believe it should have been greater than that proposed.  Having worked closely with the state legislature and third party entities, I understand the need.  It isn't a race (as another commented) to see who can require the most hours, it has more to do with being able to address allegations that we are not able to perform certain procedures or prescribe certain treatment modalities because we are not properly trained.  Our board cannot list procedure codes or even interpret the statutes to help defend us if challanged.   At this time, the only active benchmark we have is the number of hours we spend per year educating ourselves. This applies to both the legislative and third party fronts.  I also appreciate the portion allowing rollover hours.  As for the 50% face-to-face portion, I see the value in requiring this, but would take it one step futher as another said, and require a nominal test.  That would be alright with a liver webinar as well.  Without that additional requirement, one can sleep through the lecture and still receive credit.  I see it happening all the time.