ABIM does about-face on changes to MOC program

[Ligament]

If you are a doc supporting the MOC extortion you are a traitor to the profession, contributing to the death of your own specialty and forced movement into hospital employment.

http://medicaleconomics.modernmedic...news/abim-does-about-face-changes-moc-program

ABIM does about-face on changes to MOC program
February 03, 2015
By Jeffrey Bendix, Senior Editor

In a surprising development, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) is changing or suspending several of the recent revisions made to its maintenance of certification (MOC) program—and has apologized for making those revisions.

“A year ago, ABIM changed its once-every-10-years MOC program to a more continuous one,” ABIM’s president and chief executive officer Richard Baron, MD, MACP, said in a written statement. “This change generated legitimate criticism among internists and medical specialty societies. We got it wrong, and sincerely apologize.”

Read: MOC needs revision before physicians will recognize value

The changes ABIM is making include:

• immediate suspension of the practice assessment, patient voice, and patient safety requirements of the MOC process for at least two years. “This means that no internist will have his or her certification status changed for not having completed these activities in these areas for at least the next two years,” according to the ABIM statement;
• changing, in the next six months, the language on the ABIM website used to report a diplomate’s MOC status from “meeting MOC requirements” to “participating in MOC”;
• updating the internal medicine exam to make it more reflective of what practicing physicians are doing;
• keeping MOC enrollment fees at or below 2014 levels through at least 2017, and
• assuring “new and more flexible ways for internists to demonstrate self-assessment of medical knowledge by recognizing most forms of ACCME-[Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education] approved Continuing Medical Education.”

"While ABIM’s Board believes that a more-continuous certification helps all of us keep up with the rapidly changing nature of modern medical practice, it is clear that parts of the new program are not meeting the needs of physicians like yourself,” Baron said.

In addition, Baron pledged that ABIM “will work with medical societies and directly with diplomates to seek input regarding the MOC program through meetings, webinars, forums, online communications channels, surveys and more.”

The ABIM is the largest of the 24 boards comprising the American Board of Medical Specialties.

Prior to 2014 physicians who boarded after 1990—and who did not therefore have lifetime certification—had been required to recertify every 10 years. Last year, however, ABIM announced it would require physicians to complete various MOC requirements on three- and five-year cycles. It also said that physicians who certified in 1989 or earlier, and who had not subsequently recertified, would be listed as “certified, not meeting MOC requirements.”

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ducttape]

hate to be redundant, but i got this email this morning:

We got it wrong. We're sorry.





Dear Dr. Loser-who-let-Certification-expire-5-years-ago:

ABIM clearly got it wrong. We launched programs that weren't ready and we didn't deliver an MOC program that physicians found meaningful. We want to change that.

Nearly 80 years ago, the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians founded the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). ABIM was charged with distinguishing the discipline of internal medicine from other forms of practice by creating uniform standards for internists. Those standards have evolved over the years, reflecting the dynamic nature of internal medicine and its more than 20 subspecialties.

A year ago, ABIM changed its once-every-10-years Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program to a more continuous one. This change generated legitimate criticism among internists and medical specialty societies. Some believe ABIM has turned a deaf ear to practicing physicians and has not adequately developed a relevant, meaningful program for them as they strive to keep up to date in their fields.

ABIM is listening and wants to be responsive to your concerns. While ABIM's Board believes that a more-continuous certification helps all of us keep up with the rapidly changing nature of modern medical practice, it is clear that parts of the new program are not meeting the needs of physicians like yourself.

We got it wrong and sincerely apologize. We are sorry.

As a result, ABIM is taking the following steps:

• Effective immediately, ABIM is suspending the Practice Assessment, Patient Voice and Patient Safety requirements for at least two years. This means that no internist will have his or her certification status changed for not having completed activities in these areas for at least the next two years. Diplomates who are currently not certified but who have satisfied all requirements for Maintenance of Certification except for the Practice Assessment requirement will be issued a new certificate this year.
• Within the next six months, ABIM will change the language used to publicly report a diplomate's MOC status on its website from “meeting MOC requirements” to “participating in MOC.”
• ABIM is updating the Internal Medicine MOC exam. The update will focus on making the exam more reflective of what physicians in practice are doing, with any changes to be incorporated beginning fall 2015, with more subspecialties to follow.
• MOC enrollment fees will remain at or below the 2014 levels through at least 2017.
• By the end of 2015, ABIM will assure new and more flexible ways for internists to demonstrate self-assessment of medical knowledge by recognizing most forms of ACCME-approved Continuing Medical Education.

Please visit our FAQ page for more information about these changes. I do want you to know that, since the changes being made are significant, it will take time until your individual status page is updated on the ABIM website.

ABIM is changing the way it does its work so that it is guided by, and integrated fully with, the medical community that created it. However, I know that actions will speak louder than words. Therefore, ABIM will work with medical societies and directly with diplomates to seek input regarding the MOC program through meetings, webinars, forums, online communications channels, surveys and more. The goal is to co-create an MOC program that reflects the medical community's shared values about the practice of medicine today and provides a professionally created and publicly recognizable framework for keeping up in our discipline.

As the first non-academic physician to lead ABIM, I am particularly proud of my 30 years in private, community practice, and I see this letter to you as a start – a new beginning. The ABIM Board of Directors, staff and I are fully committed to doing a better job – to ensure that ABIM and MOC evolve to better reflect the changing nature of medical practice.

It remains important for physicians to have publicly recognizable ways – designed by internists — to demonstrate their knowledge of medicine and its practice. Internists are justifiably proud of their knowledge and skills. However, the current MOC program can and should be improved.

Over the next few months, you'll see communication from me and ABIM leadership, asking about your vision for internal medicine, the MOC program and your opinions about what it means to be a doctor today. We have also created “Transforming ABIM”, a Google+ Community that you can join, to ask questions and share ideas, and a blog.

I have heard you – and ABIM's Board has heard you. We will continue to listen to your concerns and evolve our program to ensure it embodies our shared values as internists.

Thank you for your input and feedback – and for the important clinical work you do each and every day.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Baron, MD, MACP
President and Chief Executive Officer
American Board of Internal Medicine

 

[nvrsumr]

Aapmr needs to follow suit

 

[Ligament]

Aapmr needs to follow suit

I am friends with a AAPMR board member. This person is at the AAPMR board meeting right now, and MOC extortion is going to be a big topic of argument from this person. The leadership is aware...whether they listen is another issue. Dr. Sliwa, calling YOU out. Stop extorting your fellow physicians!

 

[Ducttape]

i hope the ASA also follows suit.

now i dont mind being told we have to do so much CME a year. but the practice performance and the recertification examination are completely worthless and pure extortion.

 

[OB1🤙]

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/changemoca

Petition the ABA to drastically change or eliminate MOCA!

 

[Ducttape]

im too gullible... that link doesnt exist...

 

[OB1🤙]

Sorry, I dunno what the hell happened at first. I fixed the link. Please sign if you are tired of being extorted by the MOC process!

 

[drusso]

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/changemoca

Petition the ABA to drastically change or eliminate MOCA!

Steve and Lig: Maybe we should ask the ABPMR to do the same?

 

[lobelsteve]

Steve and Lig: Maybe we should ask the ABPMR to do the same?

Will be outspoken with this opinion at march committee meeting.

 

[Ligament]

Steve and Lig: Maybe we should ask the ABPMR to do the same?

Absolutely. How?

I could start an online petition site as my contribution. You and Steve are much more politically involved and I'd love for you to represent us.

 

[Ligament]

Will be outspoken with this opinion at march committee meeting.

Please please please do Steve. I'm on board.

 

[Disciple]

Will be outspoken with this opinion at march committee meeting.

I would assume the ABPMR will wait and see what the other boards do.

Isn't that what led to all the boards coming up with these MOC requirements in the first place?

 

[SSdoc33]

Absolutely. How?

I could start an online petition site as my contribution. You and Steve are much more politically involved and I'd love for you to represent us.

does starting an online petition against MOC qualify as a "Practice Improvement Project"?

 

[Doctodd]

does starting an online petition against MOC qualify as a "Practice Improvement Project"?

Well done

 

[drusso]

I think that it is of tantamount importance that ACGME-boarded pain specialists call their primary certifying board and voice their frustration and anger over the MOC process.

 

[sblau001]

Steve, if you do bring this topic up with ABPMR, please ask about specific numbers. After expenses, ABPMR reported 1.6 million in revenue in 2013. Anthony Tarvestad, the executive director (and a lawyer) has seen his pay increase from $192,970 (plus $17,986 in contributions to employee benefit plans) in 2004, to a whopping $395,887 (plus $103,737 filed under other compensation from the organization and related organizations) in 2013. All these numbers can be verified here:
https://www.citizenaudit.org/416029315/

This makes me physically sick. We the physicians are struggling more and more just to keep up with all the reimbursement cuts, and these guys are posting record profits.
Also, when and where is this committee meeting, and is it open to all board members? I would definitely consider going and speaking my mind.

 

[Ligament]

MODS; can we move this to the PUBLIC forum? I want the ABPMR/ABMS traitors to read these posts.

 

[lobelsteve]

I am on the AAPMR membership committee. I will bring this to the committee to take to the AAPMR board of governors for action on ABPMR MOC. It would bolster membership if we kicked the teeth out of MOC.

 

[DOctorJay]

It certainly would Steve. I have not renewed yet this year and will make my decision to renew based on what happens with MOC. Thanks for fighting the good fight.

 

[drusso]

Steve, if you do bring this topic up with ABPMR, please ask about specific numbers. After expenses, ABPMR reported 1.6 million in revenue in 2013. Anthony Tarvestad, the executive director (and a lawyer) has seen his pay increase from $192,970 (plus $17,986 in contributions to employee benefit plans) in 2004, to a whopping $395,887 (plus $103,737 filed under other compensation from the organization and related organizations) in 2013. All these numbers can be verified here:
https://www.citizenaudit.org/416029315/

This makes me physically sick. We the physicians are struggling more and more just to keep up with all the reimbursement cuts, and these guys are posting record profits.
Also, when and where is this committee meeting, and is it open to all board members? I would definitely consider going and speaking my mind.

I want to state here, plainly, as I have to many colleagues over the years: We hold the power to change this, and many other “institutions” in medicine by simply BOYCOTTING the very process that keeps them alive, but we all seem to be oppressed by fear which prevents us from doing so. This particular process, being board certified, should NOT hold us hostage by fear, there is ample evidence in the literature that it is meaningless, and the only folks who are trying to maintain it’s value are the ones enriching themselves off the process.

We are PHYSICIANS. This is OUR HOUSE of medicine. Get involved, get on your professional society's committee and take back YOUR PROFESSION. Say it all together: "There is no such thing as legitimate rape." Tell the ABPMR that you have lost confidence in them. Demand their Board of Directors sanction and discipline Mr. Tarvestad.

 

[KVPainMD]

I agree. I wish this would include the ASA. I think it's ridiculous to have instituted "pay us $5000" to go practice on a dummy and "pass" so we can verify you can do anesthesia!! Which other profession does this??I don't see surgeons having to practice fake choles.

 

[miamidoc2b]

Since its inception, maintenance of certification (MOC) has been an evolving process and the source of significant debate. In recent weeks, that debate has intensified after an American Board of Internal Medicine announcement concerning its MOC program's deficiencies (http://www.abim.org/news/abim-announces-immediate-changes-to-moc-program.aspx).
The ABA has collected 10 years of data and conducted multiple diplomate surveys to ascertain the relevance and applicability of its own Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology Program (MOCA®), which launched in 2004. We strongly believe the program assures the public that our diplomates demonstrate commitment to quality clinical outcomes and patient safety. That said, we are constantly looking for ways to improve and enhance the MOCA process to address areas of concern raised by our diplomates.

In collaboration with a group of volunteer anesthesiologists, comprised of subspecialists, private practitioners, academicians, early-career diplomates and anesthesiology residents, we are redesigning our MOCA program. Our vision is to aid anesthesiologists as they continuously assess their knowledge, identify their specific knowledge gaps, and connect to targeted educational resources that will meet their individual needs. Our objective is to integrate the various components of MOCA and provide greater flexibility for diplomates to design an individualized learning plan that adds the most value to their practice.
In 2014, we completed development of a new web-based prototype we are calling MOCA 2.0. We solicited the help of our 18 volunteers, who provided their feedback on the design, content and functionality of the prototype. The development will continue in 2015 with the goal of piloting a new MOCA program in the near future.
We are excited about MOCA 2.0 because it will provide diplomates with valuable resources they can use to track their progress and enhance their learning while addressing many of the concerns some of them have raised about the current program. The platform will continue to advance the highest standards of the practice of anesthesiology. It will also align well with the American Board of Medical Specialties' 2015 MOC Standards, which provide for greater flexibility for Member Boards as they consider new and innovative approaches to MOC.
In the interim, the requirements of our current MOCA program will not change. We continue to believe that MOCA is of tremendous value to the public and the practice of anesthesiology. We welcome and appreciate our diplomates' feedback, and are committed to partnering with them to design a program that is more meaningful and less burdensome.
If you have suggestions or recommendations you would like to share with the Board, click the MOCA Feedback link or visit http://moca.theaba.org/fg.pl.

Sincerely,

James P. Rathmell
Secretary

 

[miamidoc2b]

Above from the ABA.

The link can be responded to by anyone. Please respond and let me know how to respond as well.

 

[Ducttape]

here is an email that i recieved almost immediately after the above one, from one of our anesthesiology colleagues. i cannot take credit for its content or wording, although i agree with the content.

Dear Colleague,

You probably received an email communication from the ABA recently regarding plans for reform of its MOCA program. As a signatory of the online petition calling for significant changes to MOCA, we encourage you to contact the ABA directly to voice your concerns.

The link for MOCA feedback is available at http://moca.theaba.org/fg.pl

We have written the form letter that follows, which you are free to copy and paste into your response if you agree with its content.

If you would prefer not to receive any communication from us in the future regarding MOCA reform, please reply and ask to be removed. The privacy of your email address will always be completely respected and protected.

Please also visit our Facebook site at https://www.facebook.com/ChangeMOCA, and share it with your colleagues. Please also continue to spread word of the petition- http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/changemoca .

Thanks very much,
Oren Bernstein, MD and Thomas Gallen, MD, MPH

I appreciate your forward thinking regarding modification of the current expensive, bloated MOCA process. I have the following suggestions regarding improvements that I feel strongly would improve MOCA's value and make it meaningful to my practice.

1. I think it is critical that MOCA 2.0 serve as a predominantly educational tool that teaches by testing, rather than an expensive penal examination that has limited educational benefit. In lieu of a high stakes secure examination, MOCA 2.0 should feature an online module that can be incrementally worked on over time, reinforcing recent landmark literature. There is no evidence that secure examinations improve patient care. If the goal of MOCA is to keep diplomates current, this would be a far better system to accomplish that goal than the current secure examination.

2. Eliminate or make optional the expensive (enrollment cost, travel, accommodations, and opportunity cost) simulator component of MOCA. Only 25 states have a simulator center and that means that an enormous amount of diplomates have to fly or drive long distances for a brief session that has been repeatedly described as "of marginal or no benefit". If the board feels strongly that simulations are of benefit then we recommend they take a cue from the AHA and build a feature into MOCA 2.0 similar to the ACLS HeartCode, a simulated simulator, that permits critical event simulation without the unnecessary expenses and hassle.

3. The ethics of the PPAI modules have been questioned and the multiple levels of oversight and regulation already in place (SCIP quality measures, PQRS reporting, internal peer-review processes) make this activity predominantly cumbersome, repetitive busywork that serves little value in the real world. It should be eliminated.

If real changes are not made, and MOCA remains an expensive, arduous process, I may choose to seek alternative board certification with an entity such as NBPAS, which embraces lifelong learning and high quality medical care without imposing enormous burdens on its diplomates. I therefore urge you to make MOCA 2.0 a meaningful, valuable program by removing the secure examination, simulator, and PPAI components. Everything that MOCA is purported to accomplish can be done so via the online activity, and can be done so at more reasonable cost.

 

[Ligament]

here is an email that i recieved almost immediately after the above one, from one of our anesthesiology colleagues. i cannot take credit for its content or wording, although i agree with the content.

I don't get it. WTF would they support MOC in ANY form whatsoever? It should be ELIMINATED completely. Don't be ******* and beg that the rules be changed just a little bit so as not to offend your masters. MOC needs to be completely eliminated, and recognized for what it is: EXTORTION.

We physicians have ENOUGH burdens on our shoulders. These idiots in the leadership robbing their fellow physicians of time and money should be ashamed. They should be focused on helping their brothers and sisters survive, rather than burdening them with even more USELESS busywork and costs.

 

[Ligament]

Dear Colleague,


Please do not respond to this email address as it is my work email.


On 2-23-2015, Dr. Steven Weinberger, the President of ACP, sent a disturbing letter (attached) critical of NBPAS to its members. Below, NBPAS addresses each point made by ACP:

1)ABIM has reached out to ACP for assistance in recruiting a sample of physicians in clinical practice who can provide input about the blueprint that ABIM uses for selecting topics for questions on the secure examination. “The feedback that ABIM would like to get about each topic concerns ‘how frequently is the topic seen in practice’ and ‘how important is it for a practitioner to know about this topic’.”

ACP misses the point. Clinical practices within a specialty vary greatly. Practice knowledge modules and secure exams are not tailored to individual practices and therefore will always be irrelevant to a large proportion of certifying candidates.

2)Will an alternative pathway be credible to substitute as a credentialing requirement for hospitals and health plans?

Many hospitals are currently considering such a substitution. Many believe a substitution will be credible and is sorely needed. Additionally, it should be noted that in some areas, NBPAS requirements for certification are more stringent than ABMS requirements (ie the NBPAS requirement for active hospital privileges in some specialties and the NBPAS requirement for privileges in the certified specialty to never have been involuntarily revoked and not reinstated).

3)If you are named in a medical liability lawsuit, how will it appear when it is noted that you have not recertified through ABIM but have instead tried to show that you are “certified” through a process that has not been widely accepted and whose requirements are minimal?

NBPAS is surprised ACP would resort to such scare tactic. This is simply an embarrassment. Does ACP think physicians are naïve enough to believe ABIM certification will impact lawsuits? NBPAS Board members are thought leaders in the medical community. Clearly, NBPAS certification carries gravitas.

4)If you have a time-limited certificate from ABIM, are you willing to forfeit that primary certification in internal medicine and/or a subspecialty of internal medicine when that certificate expires?

This is another misguided embarrassing scare tactic. ACP leadership is attempting to mislead candidates about the ABIM MOC process. If one does not initially pursue MOC and later decides to pursue MOC, all one has to do is make up the deficiencies, and, of course, pay ABIM’s fees.

5)Is the fee for an alternative pathway reasonable considering both what you are getting as well as the expenses of the group that has developed the alternative pathway? For example, a fee of $169 every 2 years is almost half of the ABIM’s internal medicine MOC fee, but the alternative organization has no program or product development costs, as all it is doing is sending an electronic certificate (there is an additional charge for a paper certificate).

NBPAS (a 501 (C) (3) organization. Fees will be adjusted (hopefully down), to cover expenses. NBPAS is a grassroots endeavor with no endowment compared to ABIM’s annual revenue of $55,000,000. The NBPAS annual budget is expected to be in the hundreds of thousands. Physician working for ABIM earn $400,000 to nearly $1,000,0000 annually. Physicians working for NBPAS receive no salary. With its very small budget, NBPAS must run our office, hire staff to verify physician applications, and pay legal as well as information technology expenses. Surprisingly, one of NBPAS’s expenses are fees ABMS charges to verify their diplomat’s certification (patients do not have to pay to verify physician certification but professional organizations must pay ABMS). ABIM has a $55M budget and does the same things as NBPAS but, additionally, provides test questions. There is no solid evidence these test questions improve the quality of patient care. It has been estimated ABIM receives approximately $4,000 for each test question it develops.

6)“I also wanted to clarify an issue and correct misinformation that has been raised about the relationship between MOC and the Medical Licensure Compact proposed by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB)…’The Compact makes absolutely no reference to Maintenance of Certification (MOC)’.”

Once again, ACP attempts to mislead its physicians. While the statement above is partially correct, if the Compact requires ABIM certification, then MOC will be required for all diplomats with time limited certificates.

Finally, we should point out that ACP has a considerable conflict of interest on this issue. ACP sells resources that can be used for MOC. Some examples are MKSAP modules that can earn MOC points costing $389- $889 and MOC exam prep courses costing $760 - $920. Furthermore, there is an informal relationship between ACP and ABIM. Many ABIM members have become president of ACP.

Ten days after NBPAS was launched, ABIM apologized to its diplomats and made positive, although inadequate, changes to MOC. NBPAS finds it offensive that ACP should take credit for these changes. Instead of complementing NBPAS on inspiring change at ABIM, ACP is publically critical of NBPAS. We believe ACP should do the right thing and support alternative certification pathways that provide physician choice.


Sincerely yours


Paul Teirstein. M.D.

President, NBPAS



Paul Teirstein, M.D.

Scripps Clinic

10666 North Torrey Pines Road

La Jolla, CA 92037

Office: 858 554 9905

 

[miamidoc2b]

I don't get it. WTF would they support MOC in ANY form whatsoever? It should be ELIMINATED completely. Don't be ******* and beg that the rules be changed just a little bit so as not to offend your masters. MOC needs to be completely eliminated, and recognized for what it is: EXTORTION.

We physicians have ENOUGH burdens on our shoulders. These idiots in the leadership robbing their fellow physicians of time and money should be ashamed. They should be focused on helping their brothers and sisters survive, rather than burdening them with even more USELESS busywork and costs.

I agree. Needs to go.

Need a good response to ABA

 

[Ducttape]

I don't get it. WTF would they support MOC in ANY form whatsoever? It should be ELIMINATED completely. Don't be ******* and beg that the rules be changed just a little bit so as not to offend your masters. MOC needs to be completely eliminated, and recognized for what it is: EXTORTION.

We physicians have ENOUGH burdens on our shoulders. These idiots in the leadership robbing their fellow physicians of time and money should be ashamed. They should be focused on helping their brothers and sisters survive, rather than burdening them with even more USELESS busywork and costs.

i disagree entirely.

some sort of continuing education is required. it probably matters little how that takes shape, but i have distinct recollection of physicians, prior to CME requirements, in the 70s and early 80s, who did not keep up with medical knowledge and refused to acknowledge that what they had learned was antiquated and point blank wrong. doctors who stated that cigarette smoking has no causal link to COPD, CAD, or any other medical condition because they learned tobacco company data in med school. doctors who thought that hypertension did not need to be treated. doctors who were absolutely sure that what worked for old white causasian males also worked for females/blacks/young people. in terms of IPM, doctors who, even 5 years ago, thought that CESIs should be done blind. would you a blind sitting CESI?

You need to be keeping up on literature and data. You have a responsibility to know your trade, the changes to your trade, and you owe it to your patients. it should be the responsibility of your organization to provide it for you and make sure that the literature is not biased and is not tainted EBM, for sure, but that is a separate issue.

 

[Ligament]

There is a difference between MOC and CME.

 

[Ducttape]

yes, which is why there needs to be CME specific to your specialty.

tell me how "Child, Adolescent, and Adult Immunization Schedules$10 • 5 Hours/Credits" (http://www.netce.com/courseoverview.php?courseid=910) improves my education for pain management. or "Bleeding During Pregnancy$29 • 10 Hours/Credits "(http://www.netce.com/courseoverview.php?courseid=910)...


http://www.kevinpezzi.com/blog/ridiculous_CME.php

 

[emd123]

There is a difference between MOC and CME.

Yes. CME has always been required and should be. But, but, but....

MOC is a racket and about money for the organizations that have us by the balls, nothing more. You don't think we learn enough as the years go on?

Fine, pass legislation require more CME. Ohh....but I get it. You don't want to do THAT because that wouldn't handcuff us until being coerced to buy the CME (under the guise of "MOC") from YOU, but would allow us to get qualifying CME on our own from independent sources. Yeah, they think we're all ----ing idiots, and haven't caught on to their mafioso-style techniques. We need to revolt against this unjustified coercion.

 

[LostTommyGuns]

"Like" the ABA change movement on FB too! Facebook.com/changeMOCA

Sign the petition like Hawai'ian Bruin said: petitionbuzz.com/petitions/ChangeMOCA

and sign Teirstein's petition too (Google ABIM MOC petition-sorry I haven't memorized that one)

 

[Ducttape]

no, i am not thinking more CME is appropriate or will provide any benefit. im thinking of fundamentally changing MOC and CME so that it is beneficial to physicians and encourages them to continue to learn about their field of expertise, not CME for the sake of CME, or meaningless MOC because we have to.

focused CME directly improving our knowledge base in our field of expertise. for example, something like the ACE or SEE. but also include a listing of approved CMEs on the ABA website, that will directly be applied to MOC. the 3rd parties that "produce" the CME will pay a subsidy fee to ABA, or buy direct from ASA. do 50 approved CMEs a year as MOC.

 

[OB1🤙]

If you read the petition, the proposal is to ditch all of moca entirely and turn it into an online CME exercise that covers recent important literature. That's it.

 

[nvrsumr]

So I have completed my practice improvement project, have a state license, have paid 7 years of dues, completed 4 life long learning tests, passed board recertification exam and have over 300 cme in the last 7 years. I was informed by the ABPMR today that I cannot receive my new 10 year board certification because I have to pay my annual dues in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The only thing holding back my updated board certification is paying dues for those years. This is proof it's all about the money and has absolutely zero to do with standards for our profession. Of course in 2018 they are stopping the 10 year certificate and moving to a yearly certificate to ensure they get more money from me.

I didn't feel like MOC was such a scam before but I have definitely changed my position. Just to be a d*** the hard truth is that no one at ABPMR/AAPMR has the clinical acumen to judge my competency as a physician.

 

[lobelsteve]

So I have completed my practice improvement project, have a state license, have paid 7 years of dues, completed 4 life long learning tests, passed board recertification exam and have over 300 cme in the last 7 years. I was informed by the ABPMR today that I cannot receive my new 10 year board certification because I have to pay my annual dues in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The only thing holding back my updated board certification is paying dues for those years. This is proof it's all about the money and has absolutely zero to do with standards for our profession. Of course in 2018 they are stopping the 10 year certificate and moving to a yearly certificate to ensure they get more money from me.

I didn't feel like MOC was such a scam before but I have definitely changed my position. Just to be a d*** the hard truth is that no one at ABPMR/AAPMR has the clinical acumen to judge my competency as a physician.

I will share this with AAPMR on Saturday. If they are not receptive to forcing the boards hands i will start a petition ending moc for pmr and work to get pmr involved in the alternative board process run by physicians for physicians.

 

[LostTommyGuns]

Lobelsteve-I would recommend you pursue both paths now rather than waiting. If you want peace prepare for war.

 

[lobelsteve]

Waiting until this Saturday when I have the attention of the membership committee of the AAPMR.

 

[Ligament]

I will share this with AAPMR on Saturday. If they are not receptive to forcing the boards hands i will start a petition ending moc for pmr and work to get pmr involved in the alternative board process run by physicians for physicians.

Steve, I'm begging you, please do this and push it hard. I cannot tell you how fed up we are with this extortion game. At a time when we are all fighting to survive in private practice, we do not need our own organizations adding untenable and unjustified burdens on us. Not only is there absolutely no justification for MOC, but the opportunity cost is extreme. Remind the board when you speak that the ABIM has had a full on revolt due to extortion, which has sparked the formation of an alternate certification board to the ABMS.

These folks benefiting from MOC are the board execs, and their mostly academia physician members who have paid for non-clinical time for MOC. These academicians such as Sliwa live in academia where CMEs, MOCs are a paid way of life and a hobby that takes no toll on their clinical practice or income, or ability to pay their employees, or ability to keep their practices alive.

I will personally donate $50 to http://www.changeboardrecert.com/anti-moc.html if you can do this for us.

(I pay the money the ABMS is trying to extort from me in MOC charges to changeboardrecert.com every year.)

Tell the board what we need is their support. We need them to fight for us. We need them to shoulder burdens for us, not place them upon us.

If they tell you that they are trying to HELP us by giving us the pleasure of MOC extortion, tell them to Fkuc themselves.

BTW, I'm ok with reasonable CME requirements. But MOC is pure extortion.

 

[lobelsteve]

https://nbpas.org/apply-for-certification/

Just submitted my application for PMR with Pain subspecialty. Need valid license and proof of 100hrs CME done within last 2 years.

It's time to say goodbye to the ABMS and the ABPMR. I already paid my exam fee for this October and will either ask for a refund or take the last test of my life.

 

[DOctorJay]

I thought you were going to be discussing things with the board on Saturday Steve?

Have you learned anything since your last post that has prompted you to make this move to join NBPAS?

 

[lobelsteve]

Just need to go in reporting i already secured my "other " board certification.

 

[Ducttape]

get it in writing from your employer, however, that they will take the new certification.


just saying...

 

[lobelsteve]

The AAPMR is going to have discussions with the ABPMR in an effort to support its members. Sign up by becoming a member of the AAPMR and we will have greater advocacy.

 

[sblau001]

Really, Steve?! That's it?! The AAPMR provides ABPMR-certified MOC courses and charges a fortune for them. Their answer is pay us the $645 annual fee, and we'll advocate for you?! Let me see them drop their course prices, come out with a statement against MOC, and then I'll consider joining. (It is beyond me why the $645 annual fee does not include the CME and MOC courses they provide; the charges for these are well over $100 each.)

 

[lobelsteve]

Sit back. Relax. It's a process. And prior to now it was not being discussed.

 

[DOctorJay]

What did they say regarding NBPAS?

 

[lobelsteve]

What did they say regarding NBPAS?

They is we.

I presented the powerpoint from NBPAS to committee as educational.

 

[Ligament]

They is we.

I presented the powerpoint from NBPAS to committee as educational.

Thanks for doing this Steve. Knowing you I believe you presented our outrage clearly. The question I have is whether you feel the board gave a crap or just wrote us off yet again? Thanks.