- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 20
There may be bits and pieces of this scattered over SDN but I didn't see it on the anesthesia forums.
"Quick" Summary
The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) works under a larger body, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), to initially certify and also maintain certification (MOC). The ABA, while not specifically referenced in the below articles, is one of twenty four specialties the ABMS regulates.
A major point of contention is that the ABMS (a private corporation;allegedly a NPO) requires MOCA that is incredibly expensive and time consuming with questionable literature that its current form is the best value. What's really bothersome is how much money the ABMS profited is a five year period ending in 2013:
$39.8 million in losses
$125.7 million paid to senior officers and staff
Not bad for non-profit organization, which in order to keep its 990 NPO status checked "no" when asked if it lobbied at all, despite giving $390k to Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, a lobbying firm.
Note, the ABMS is currently being sued in an anti-trust lawsuit for requiring physicians to use their program.
The new "Doc Fix" law, H.R.2 is great, but the ABMS lobbied to have MOCA built-in such that you have to enroll in their propietary system. It's being used a center point for a value-based modifier for CMS reimbursement. It was under the radar and discovered in the links posted below.
Small example:
What can you do? (If you agree with anti-MOC movement)
1) Sign the MOCA petition
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/changemoca
2) Write your Senator
Find out who yours are by: https://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup
Sample letter: http://www.medtees.com/blog/Letter_HR2_senator.docx
3) Call your Senator
Switchboard: 1-202-224-3121
Tell them you want all references to Section 1848 (k)(4) used as determinants of a "value-based modifier" struck from the bill (this is the section that authorizes the ABMS to use their MOC program - see comments below). Tell your Senator that if he or she can't do that, then they should vote "NO" because you'll have to pay hundreds of dollars to the representatives of the independent ABMS member boards every two years to practice medicine and take time away from patients to do meaningless and unproven busywork. The ABMS MOC program should NOT be allowed to stand in the new SGR repeal legislation (H.R.2) in any form. Tell them that such a scheme represents taxation without representation.
Must Read Articles
If you haven't read the piece in Newsweek from 3/10/2015, I encourage you to do so:
Ugly Civil War in American Medicine
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/ugly-civil-war-american-medicine-312662.html
The writer from Newsweek was attacked by the ABIM for calling out the problem and a great follow-up article was written 4/7/2015:
A Certified Medical Controversy
http://www.newsweek.com/certified-medical-controversy-320495
Working Physicians Were Played; It's Time to Take Action
http://drwes.blogspot.com/2015/04/working-physicians-were-played-its-time.html
If you disagree with all of this that's fine. Constructive criticism is welcomed. Discourse is a not a good thing, it's a great thing.
"Quick" Summary
The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) works under a larger body, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), to initially certify and also maintain certification (MOC). The ABA, while not specifically referenced in the below articles, is one of twenty four specialties the ABMS regulates.
A major point of contention is that the ABMS (a private corporation;allegedly a NPO) requires MOCA that is incredibly expensive and time consuming with questionable literature that its current form is the best value. What's really bothersome is how much money the ABMS profited is a five year period ending in 2013:
$39.8 million in losses
$125.7 million paid to senior officers and staff
Not bad for non-profit organization, which in order to keep its 990 NPO status checked "no" when asked if it lobbied at all, despite giving $390k to Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, a lobbying firm.
Note, the ABMS is currently being sued in an anti-trust lawsuit for requiring physicians to use their program.
The new "Doc Fix" law, H.R.2 is great, but the ABMS lobbied to have MOCA built-in such that you have to enroll in their propietary system. It's being used a center point for a value-based modifier for CMS reimbursement. It was under the radar and discovered in the links posted below.
Small example:
What can you do? (If you agree with anti-MOC movement)
1) Sign the MOCA petition
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/changemoca
2) Write your Senator
Find out who yours are by: https://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup
Sample letter: http://www.medtees.com/blog/Letter_HR2_senator.docx
3) Call your Senator
Switchboard: 1-202-224-3121
Tell them you want all references to Section 1848 (k)(4) used as determinants of a "value-based modifier" struck from the bill (this is the section that authorizes the ABMS to use their MOC program - see comments below). Tell your Senator that if he or she can't do that, then they should vote "NO" because you'll have to pay hundreds of dollars to the representatives of the independent ABMS member boards every two years to practice medicine and take time away from patients to do meaningless and unproven busywork. The ABMS MOC program should NOT be allowed to stand in the new SGR repeal legislation (H.R.2) in any form. Tell them that such a scheme represents taxation without representation.
Must Read Articles
If you haven't read the piece in Newsweek from 3/10/2015, I encourage you to do so:
Ugly Civil War in American Medicine
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/ugly-civil-war-american-medicine-312662.html
The writer from Newsweek was attacked by the ABIM for calling out the problem and a great follow-up article was written 4/7/2015:
A Certified Medical Controversy
http://www.newsweek.com/certified-medical-controversy-320495
Working Physicians Were Played; It's Time to Take Action
http://drwes.blogspot.com/2015/04/working-physicians-were-played-its-time.html
If you disagree with all of this that's fine. Constructive criticism is welcomed. Discourse is a not a good thing, it's a great thing.