Reigning in abp and MOC

[pathstudent]

I know this is a larger issue than pathology But I question the value of my time and money involved in the,process. I have come to the conclusion that it could be nothing more than a method for the specialty boards to milk doctors.

First you have to pay each time you report, then you pay for SAMs which are so silly and surely the ABP is getting a cut from those two directly or indirectly, and you have to pay a few hundred to take a a few hours "patient safety course". Really, patient safety wasn't part of med school or residency? And then there is the retest which we most of us have to travel to.

Is there any evidence that these activities will reduce the morbidity and/or mortality of the American people? If so, I will go along with them. But I do have plenty of evidence that it takes time and money away from me and my family. If they can't demonstrate that healthcare of the U.S. population is on the upswing because of MOC, then please let's stop.

In my group I don't see the pathologists that don't have to MOC as being any worse or more dangerous to patients than those of us that do.

Is there any movement to push back against the abms?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Thrombus]

We have to practice evidence based medicine, and rightly so.

There is no evidence based regulation, other than that it represents someone's opinion and/or extortion scheme.

Eventually all the regulation will collapse on itself. I would argue that we are closer to that breaking point than ever. Soon one will not be able to wipe one's own arse in a hospital without filling out paperwork and being issued a bill.

 

[cmz]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834308?nlid=69043_2863&src=wnl_edit_dail&uac=206602FN

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1921754

 

[coroner]

Don't forget child abuse identification now required by many state licensing boards...another racket, especially for pathologists.

 

[yaah]

MOC is a crude way to get at something which is considered increasingly important - how to ensure that practitioners remain qualified to practice as they age. But the tactics currently used are mostly 1) paying a fee, 2) Taking and listing your CME. Most of this is nonsense since medical licenses require this as well. Path and presumably some other specialties also have peer attestations and exams. But these are easily obtained (#1) and basically just a hoop to jump through (#2). Forcing people to jump through hoops does, actually, weed out some lesser performers who just can't seem to manage. But I really doubt the significance of the MOC process in this. And the fact that essentially any current practitioner over the age of about 40-45 is "exempt" is akin to ludicrous. If it's an important thing in maintaining competency, shouldn't the main target be the older folks farther out of training?

MOC is essentially a response to mandates and regulations, and is not terribly well thought out. It is both something trying to be as easy as possible as well as something trying to make sure it covers all the bases for political and legal reasons. It is left as something that just looks like a meaningless money grab. Personally, I think medical licensing is adequate for most of this.

Making it "more difficult" is not really the point. It should be easy for competent practitioners. But siphoning out several hundred dollars from practitioners (and the health care system) over the 10 year cycle basically comes across as graft. Organizations like the ABP need to charge $ for MOC mostly so that they can pay for the process of putting MOC together (making sure it's adequate, paying people to review it, paying people to write questions and travel, etc). If organizations really cared about their practitioners, they should endeavor to make it as simple and low-cost as possible.

It essentially has every characteristic of a scam.