APMA blocks ACGME from exploring podiatry as a medical specialty.

[SoleSucking]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I got an email from ABPM that APMA wouldn’t let the credentialing committee for MD’s/DO’s (ACGME) look into exploring podiatry as a specialty of medicine.

I’ll put the email below.
___________

Recently, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) created a task force to explore accrediting podiatry residencies as a specialty of medicine. The ACGME is an independent non-profit agency recognized by the government and all key stakeholders in medicine as the authoritative body on residency and fellowship standards for MDs and DOs. They asked us to participate in a panel with the intention of offering Podiatry educational parity with MD’s and DO’s



Unfortunately, members of the APMA BOT declined participation. We are disappointed in the APMA Board of Trustees’ decision not to explore podiatry accreditation with ACGME, which would be a major step in parity with our MD and DO colleagues.



What Is the ACGME Task Force?

As above, ACGME created a task force to explore accrediting podiatric residencies and invited APMA to participate. Participating in the Task Force was not an agreement to change the residency accreditation from CPME to ACGME. It was merely a seat at the table to provide ACGME with information on the needs of the podiatric profession and address our questions and concerns regarding possibly joining their organization.



Who Decides Which Organization Accredits Podiatric Residencies?

The authority to accredit podiatric residencies is delegated by the APMA House of Delegates in the APMA Bylaws. Currently, the APMA delegates that authority to the CPME, which is an agency of the APMA. Only the House of Delegates has the authority to change this delegation to the ACGME.



How Could ACGME Accreditation Benefit the Profession?

Were this to happen, podiatry would become a “specialty of medicine,” similar to any other specialty. Podiatric training would be seen by the public and institutions as on par with MD/DO training. It would invalidate questions or criticism about podiatric residency, because we are meeting the same standards of every MD/DO program.



In fact, one of the key agreements in the 2021 Joint Task Force White Paper from the AAOS, AOFAS, APMA, and ACFAS was that “CPME approval of podiatric residency programs should meet comparable standards to the ACGME.” The only thing better than meeting comparable standards would be to meet the same standards.



Additionally, the history of ACGME accreditation of other professions has been extremely positive for the new members. In 2014, DOs joined ACGME and stopped accreditation of programs by their organization, AOA. Since that time, enrolled osteopathic students increased by 70% and the osteopathic profession grew by 81%.



How Are ACGME Standards Different from CPME Standards and Might Some Programs Not Be Able to Meet the Standards?

ACGME has two sets of standards for residencies and fellowships: Common Program Requirements and Specialty Program Requirements. Common Program Requirements are general requirements for all MD/DO programs and contain standards including facility requirements, the director and leadership structure, resident grievance policy, resident evaluation, and resident well-being. Most of these are already included in the CPME Residency Program Standards. Specialty Program Requirements are specific to the specialty and determined by the Recognition & Review Committees (RC). The RC is comprised solely of physicians in the specialty. This means that only podiatrists would be determining podiatry residency standards.



Currently, 80% of the 223 podiatric residency programs are sponsored by accredited institutions already meeting ACGME standards.



To address concerns, there will not be sudden closure of programs. In the case of osteopaths, there was a 6-year phase-in period for DO residency programs to become complaint with ACGME standards. We would expect a similar process for DPM programs. While it may be true that a small number of current programs might not meet the ACGME standards after this long transition, ACGME accreditation would open the door to expansion of high-quality podiatric residencies in more Academic Medical Centers and other ACGME-accredited facilities.



What is the Opinion of the ABPM Board of Directors?

We agree that questions about the process remain, but the ABPM BOD unanimously supports the APMA participating in the due diligence process with the ACGME Task Force. Not only would this allow our profession to gather more information and address concerns, but we also believe this is a step in the right direction toward parity with our allopathic and osteopathic colleagues. It will only help move podiatry forward.



What are the Next Steps?

Due to the lack of participation in the Task Force from the APMA, the ACGME has paused its Task Force. But it is not over yet, and we strongly believe the credibility and future growth of our profession hangs in the balance. This issue will be presented to the APMA House of Delegates (HOD) in March 2026. Only the HOD has the authority to determine which body accredits podiatry residencies and fellowships.

We will keep you informed.

The ABPM BOD

 

[Feli]

I got an email from ABPM...

Hopefully you won't be in that position much longer.

...but yeah, APMA won't give up power.
They'll eventually be damaged with less revenue (fewer members to their org, less student interest), but podiatry will continue to struggle.
Like I said, ACFAS didn't just randomly decide one day to drop APMA membership req out of thin air...

 

[heybrother]

This is more important than the ortho thread.

 

[Sendin_Toes_2market]

If 1/5 of the programs did not meet standard, they were probably concerned about negative review which could have made our profession look bad. Again, why are 20% of our programs not ACGME complaint and we have the balls to stomp our feet whenever someone talks bad about us…

Perhaps Dr Rodger’s can fill me in after heading an organization championing parity. What’s the end goal for APMA if it’s not at least educational parity.

 

[SoleSucking]

If 1/5 of the programs did not meet standard, they were probably concerned about negative review which could have made our profession look bad. Again, why are 20% of our programs not ACGME complaint and we have the balls to stomp our feet whenever someone talks bad about us…

Perhaps Dr Rodger’s can fill me in after heading an organization championing parity. What’s the end goal for APMA if it’s not at least educational parity.

Most podiatry residencies are affiliated with institutions with other residencies is what I figured from that percentage. So 80% of podiatry residencies are already associated with acgme compliant programs (i.e. the podiatry residents do internal medicine, emergency medicine, etc rotations with those programs)

 

[Sendin_Toes_2market]

Most podiatry residencies are affiliated with institutions with other residencies is what I figured from that percentage. So 80% of podiatry residencies are already associated with acgme compliant programs (i.e. the podiatry residents do internal medicine, emergency medicine, etc rotations with those programs)

I am well aware of ACGME. I was stating it as a figure of speech.

 

[SoleSucking]

I am well aware of ACGME. I was stating it as a figure of speech.

it’s a good point you made about the bottom tier of residencies not looking great to acgme. But I think of it as a win-win. We need to get rid of those programs anyways. And maybe with the current enrollment decreases there wouldn’t even be that much of a residency matriculation problem?

 

[Feli]

... What’s the end goal for APMA if it’s not at least educational parity.

Is this a real question?

 

[Sendin_Toes_2market]

Is this a real question?

I don’t think the BOT are making significant money or anything at all… I’m just being honest…

 

[Feli]

I don’t think the BOT are making significant money or anything at all… I’m just being honest…

You do realize every single podiatry student has mandatory Apmsa membership dues, yes?
You see the fees for Apma membership for practicing docs?
The "seal of approval" and corporate sponsorship stuff?
The additional money they rake for pac and "scientific" meetings other junk?

For the membership, podiatrists get nothing except a throwaway journal rag and "discounts" to essentially worthless meetings on Toecylen and amnio and how to "biopsy" toenails or sell orthotics.

And you earnestly believe this $$$ collected all goes back into helping podiatrists... that the marketing, student "delegates," and the like is to help you and the profession? After 4 new podiatry schools in less than 20 year span... with the podiatry residency quality and multiple residency shortages? With the podiatry job market and ROI the way it is, you believe that?

I would say the time to buck the trend of blindly joining (err, continuing after training) is long overdue. It's time to scrutinize the endless questionable moves and the complete lack of scientific value from the mothership. Jmo

 

[dtrack22]

And I’m the arsehole for not being an APMA member and not using my free time providing personal data to help an organization who is actively working against the best interest of all of us practicing and our profession as a whole? What a joke…

 

[heybrother]

I'm sorry for saying you were short sighted not to give money to the APMA.

 

[Dermato Fight Club]

Does anyone know if there is more information regarding this?

Is there any response from the APMA on this? Like what is their position on:
1) Did they participate?
2) Why didn't they participate?

 

[Adam Smasher]

I still don't understand what it would accomplish being a specialty recognized by ACGME. The OP outlines some really nebulous benefits that represent yet another infinitesimal step towards parity. And I don't hate the idea of parity either. But ultimately we're still podiatrists and my schedule is still full of neurotic people with complaints about their toenails.

 

[ParNoMoney]

Long time provider, long time non-APMA member. APMA advocates primarily for the APMA. Manages to pay its executives hefty $alaries while their executives enjoy perks and other grifting opportunities. I learned a long time ago, during the Reagan administration, that what is good for podiatry will not be seen as good by the APMA.

 

[Carbon13]

I suppose one hope would be that the ACGME would provide some avenue to reduce the amount of pod residencies.
Even if it occurs simply to protect ortho, out of spite, whatever the reason. Needs to be done. Too bad that APMA won't tighten things up to add value to this profession. I would gladly pay a few thousand / yr to a governing organization that sought to protect my future earnings.
The pod demand was met years ago. Decapitation is the way.

 

[dtrack22]

I still don't understand what it would accomplish being a specialty recognized by ACGME. The OP outlines some really nebulous benefits that represent yet another infinitesimal step towards parity. And I don't hate the idea of parity either. But ultimately we're still podiatrists and my schedule is still full of neurotic people with complaints about their toenails.

Well for starters, the ACGME would not have allowed a bylaws change immediately after it was discovered that a school in California didn’t meet part I first time pass rate requirements for accreditation…

 

[Feli]

I suppose one hope would be that the ACGME would provide some avenue to reduce the amount of pod residencies.
Even if it occurs simply to protect ortho, out of spite, whatever the reason. Needs to be done. Too bad that APMA won't tighten things up to add value to this profession. I would gladly pay a few thousand / yr to a governing organization that sought to protect my future earnings.
The pod demand was met years ago. Decapitation is the way.

This is correct. ^^^
This is it guys... this has been the answer needed for quite a long time.

...To anyone unbiased, there are far too many pod schools, pod residencies, podiatrists practicing.
There are far far FAR too many "foot and ankle surgeons," but there are way too many DPMs overall also.
But to the Apma or a pod school dean or some residency directors/attendings... more pod students, pod residents, and DPMs means more $$$.

Acgme or any neutral source can see it plainly. Most DPMs at least a few years out into practice do also:

ER docs don't get paid because their society lobbies and pushes and sets senator dinners. They get paid mainly because they are limited and skilled and in demand. They have options.

Derm docs don't get paid because their society lobbies and pushes and sets senator dinners. They get paid mainly because they are limited and skilled and in demand. They have options.

Endocrinology docs don't get paid because their society lobbies and pushes and sets senator dinners. They get paid mainly because they are limited and skilled and in demand. They have options.

Family practice docs don't get paid because their society lobbies and pushes and sets senator dinners. They get paid mainly because they are limited and skilled and in demand. They have options.

Podiatrists, on the whole, do NOT get paid well or have much pick of jobs because they are effectively UNlimited relative to public/hospital demand. Regardless of what Apma or even Acfas does or claims to do (lobby, write letters, campaign, lengthens training), even skilled podiatrists are in very low demand. We are closer to pharmacy and even chiropractic than we are to MD/DO in terms of scarcity and demand. Even top DPM fellowship grads are "lucky" to get a hospital/ortho job offer or two in states they don't really want. There are just too many of us.

 

[diabeticfootdr]

Well for starters, the ACGME would not have allowed a bylaws change immediately after it was discovered that a school in California didn’t meet part I first time pass rate requirements for accreditation…

ACGME wouldn't have anything to do (directly) with school accreditation. In podiatry, CPME performs the same function as 4 different accrediting organizations for MDs. IMO, CPME has just gotten too big to fail and needs to be broken up. Especially with the corruption evident at CPME.

 

[dtrack22]

ACGME wouldn't have anything to do (directly) with school accreditation. In podiatry, CPME performs the same function as 4 different accrediting organizations for MDs. IMO, CPME has just gotten too big to fail and needs to be broken up. Especially with the corruption evident at CPME.

View attachment 409222

No, but IF there were to be some sort of absorbing of podiatry into medicine then it would be likely that other Medical Committees would be involved in podiatry education. ie goodbye CPME and hello LCME, who would not have allowed the California school to avoid probationary status after those abysmal licensing exam results.

 

[diabeticfootdr]

If 1/5 of the programs did not meet standard, they were probably concerned about negative review which could have made our profession look bad. Again, why are 20% of our programs not ACGME complaint and we have the balls to stomp our feet whenever someone talks bad about us…

Perhaps Dr Rodger’s can fill me in after heading an organization championing parity. What’s the end goal for APMA if it’s not at least educational parity.

We don't know if they'd meet the standard. They're just at institutions which are not accredited by ACGME already. 80% are. They're probably compliant with most, if not all, of the ACGME Common Program Requirements already. (Below is a comparison chart created by CPME in their opposition to the ACGME Task Force)

Of the 20% of podiatry residencies not at ACGME accredited instutions, more than half (11% total) are sponsored by a VA alone. That is not allowed by ACGME since the training at a VA alone has gaps in what an MD/DO needs. So, either, they'd need to find a co-sponsor from another institution <OR> in our discussion with ACGME we could ask that there be an exception for podiatry residencies if they can meet the standards for podiatry. But we'll never have the opportunity to inquire/negotiate if we don't meet with them.

When the DOs started the transition of ACGME accreditation in 2014, they were given 6 years to become compliant. There will be a similar transition for podiatry. And, yes, after that time, some programs who can't meet the standards will need to close. But this creates the opportunity to establish more good podiatry residencies in academic medical centers.

 

[diabeticfootdr]

No, but IF there were to be some sort of absorbing of podiatry into medicine then it would be likely that other Medical Committees would be involved in podiatry education. ie goodbye CPME and hello LCME, who would not have allowed the California school to avoid probationary status after those abysmal licensing exam results.

Yes, I eluded to the "corruption" at CPME. And I don't make that charge lightly.

Webster's defines CORRUPTION as:
A. a dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)
B. inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)
C. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct

IMO, the actions of individuals on CPME, and the organization as a whole, meets this definition.

Here are a couple relevant examples:

Example 1 (Samuel Merritt failure to meet outcomes standards):
- In 2022, Samuel Merritt had a 69% pass rate on the APMLE Part 1. That, was at the time, below the CPME standard for school accreditation.
- In Oct 2023, CPME announced that Samuel Merritt was in noncompliance with the standards.
- In 2024, CPME voted to change the standard for accreditation to a 3-year average of passing instead of first-time pass rate (as reported by USMLE and COMLEX). Dr. Eric Stamps, then Dean of Samuel Merritt, was a Council Member.
- After that vote, I wrote to CPME and asked who was present for this meeting and if anyone recused themselves. They are required by their Bylaws to record recusals. CPME responded that the information was not public and refused to answer the question.
- In April 2024, CPME announced that Samuel Merritt was in full compliance with all standards.
- Then in 2025, (I have heard the number same as has been stated on SDN) Samuel Merritt pass rate is supposedly 21%

IMO, if true, this is an emergency. Yet, it is unclear if CPME will even act on this information.

Example 2 (CPME's failure to report COIs and acting on other interests):
- In June 2023, ABPM submitted an official complaint to CPME (attached PDF) against the Council itself for failing to follow its Bylaws and failing to follow its conflicts of interest (COI) policies. The complaint contained 17 separate complaints against the CPME and Members of the Council and 94 pages of evidence. This included a complaint that the chair of the SBRC (committee overseeing specialty boards) served in a position of duality, as a member of the ABFAS Exam Committee. How can this person chair the committee overseeing the certifying boards when she writes the exam for one of the two recognized certifying boards? It's a clear COI.
- CPME convened a "Complaint Panel" and responded in August 2023 that they could find nothing improper.
- In March 2025, several members of ABPM's BOD submitted a Bylaws Amendment to the APMA HOD which would have required CPME Council and Committee members to publicly report their COIs.
- CPME told the HOD that they are not required to publicly disclose COIs. But after significant pressure from state delegations, CPME stood before the HOD and said that they would start public disclosure. After this commitment from CPME, the sponsors of the Bylaws Amendment agreed to withdraw the proposed Amendment.
- CPME started disclosing their conflicts here. (I don't know the exact date they started this). But they explicitly excluded any committee work on behalf of organizations, even organizations they oversee, like ABFAS. JT Marcoux disclosed a conflict with ABFAS since he was on the Board of Directors.
- On Sept 1, 2025, I wrote a letter to CPME stating that their disclosure was insufficient and provided several references of Council Members and SBRC Members having positions of duality with ABFAS. I gave them 14 days to respond, they haven't yet. But if they do not start complying with what they committed to at the HOD, I will be resubmitting the Bylaws Amendment forcing them to publicly disclose their actual and perceived COIs.

Unfortunately, there are many more examples of corrupt actions that we have collected over the recent years.

So many of podiatry's issues are rooted in the CPME failing to perform its job in the profession and the public's best interests. The Council is a self-elected body. So there is no way for the profession to remove or replace members of the Council.

But, the APMA does hire the Executive Director of the CPME. And the BOT or the CEO of the APMA could replace the Executive Director.

The APMA can not have any control or influence over the Council's accreditation of schools. It would be a violation of federal law. However, the US Department of Education provided an opinion to the APMA BOT that they could have more control over the accreditation of residencies/fellowships, recognition of specialty boards, and approval of continuing medical education.

If the APMA wants to "save the profession," it's time we address serious issues at the CPME.

Edited 9-14-2025: Added links, letter, table, and figures. Corrected dates in Example 1

 

[Sendin_Toes_2market]

We don't know if they'd meet the standard. They're just at institutions which are not accredited by ACGME already. 80% are. They're probably compliant with most, if not all, of the ACGME Common Program Requirements already. (Below is a comparison chart created by CPME in their opposition to the ACGME Task Force)

Of the 20% of podiatry residencies not at ACGME accredited instutions, more than half (11% total) are sponsored by a VA alone. That is not allowed by ACGME since the training at a VA alone has gaps in what an MD/DO needs. So, either, they'd need to find a co-sponsor from another institution <OR> in our discussion with ACGME we could ask that there be an exception for podiatry residencies if they can meet the standards for podiatry. But we'll never have the opportunity to inquire/negotiate if we don't meet with them.

When the DOs started the transition of ACGME accreditation in 2014, they were given 6 years to become compliant. There will be a similar transition for podiatry. And, yes, after that time, some programs who can't meet the standards will need to close. But this creates the opportunity to establish more good podiatry residencies in academic medical centers.

View attachment 409224

I agree, I just wonder what the rational was not to at least have that discussion.

 

[deleted1218629]

You do realize every single podiatry student has mandatory Apmsa membership dues, yes?
You see the fees for Apma membership for practicing docs?
The "seal of approval" and corporate sponsorship stuff?
The additional money they rake for pac and "scientific" meetings other junk?

For the membership, podiatrists get nothing except a throwaway journal rag and "discounts" to essentially worthless meetings on Toecylen and amnio and how to "biopsy" toenails or sell orthotics.

And you earnestly believe this $$$ collected all goes back into helping podiatrists... that the marketing, student "delegates," and the like is to help you and the profession? After 4 new podiatry schools in less than 20 year span... with the podiatry residency quality and multiple residency shortages? With the podiatry job market and ROI the way it is, you believe that?

I would say the time to buck the trend of blindly joining (err, continuing after training) is long overdue. It's time to scrutinize the endless questionable moves and the complete lack of scientific value from the mothership. Jmo

I doubt they get any significant direct pay. A per diem for meetings sure, but that's reasonable and not going to move the needle on overall income. But sitting in these positions provides influence and influence pays. The surgical guys tend to be heavy in consulting. But the big thing to look at is private equity. A ton of the current and past APMA BOT are in with PE. I consider that a major conflict of interest, that's my personal opinion. I stepped away from APMA as well. They do a lot of important things so maybe that's the wrong move, and I generally think they are good people overall. But I am a podiatrist, $1,000 is a big percentage of my after tax income!

 

[Retrograde_Nail]

DING

It makes complete sense that the APMA would deny this request. It undermines everything that they wanna do. The people involved at the top of the chain are involved with private equity groups.

It does not take a genius to understand this is where podiatry is trending in the private practice world. We are seeing the creation of multiple large private equity super groups forming across the nation. Pretty soon the whole entire profession and the private practice world will be five to ten super groups and that’s it.

Why give up the power to the MD/DO crowd when they’ve got an amazing pyramid scheme going on? That is all what private equity is.

They can afford the pay associates now, a higher base salary than they ever saw in the traditional podiatry, private practice world, but the bonus structure is hard to attain and makes the owners/partners a lot of money.

All of this goes away if we give up the power to the MD/DO crowd. They will shut down schools. They would shut down residency programs. Then boom there goes the endless supply of associates who are just looking for a job to pay off their overpriced loans.

 

[diabeticfootdr]

CPME Corruption (Continued from above)

I attach the email correspondence with CPME from 7-9-2023 after they relaxed the accreditation standards which benefitted Samuel Merritt University. Dr. Eric Stamps, then Dean of SMU was a Member of the Council. The perception was one of impropriety. That is why I sent this inquiry requesting conflicts of interest disclosure and recusals. CPME did not reply to my email on 7-10-2023.

Please don't misinterpret my criticism of CPME's corrupt processes as criticism of faculty or students at SMU. Unfortunately, they are the ones who are impacted the most. If the APMLE Pass Rate really is 21%, as we're all hearing, there is obviously a systemic problem at SMU. An uncorrupted accrediting agency would take definitive action to prevent harm to the public and students.

Again, if true, and certainly in light of past failures to meet the CPME standards before they were rewritten to their benefit, I am troubled about figures I consider to be grossly misleading (which CPME allows) to potential students on SMU's website. Click on CPME Required Outcomes.

This must be a wake up call for our profession and SMU, one of the oldest institutions in podiatry, which spawned many of the early pioneers of the profession. IMO, SMU must engage external academic assistance and new podiatry leadership (who actually lives in the state) to revamp their academics quickly and CPME should prohibit SMU from enrolling new students until it can demonstrate compliance with the standards.

 

[diabeticfootdr]

DING

It makes complete sense that the APMA would deny this request. It undermines everything that they wanna do. The people involved at the top of the chain are involved with private equity groups.

If you're referring to who I think you are, you're mistaken. He was the biggest proponent of ACGME and personally involved in gauging their interest over the past couple years.

I do not have any inside information on what happened at the BOT meeting last Monday evening. But I can tell you where the opposition is coming from; CPME and ABFAS Leadership.

I find their opposition to even have a discussion with ACGME, disingenuous. They claimed they had too many questions, but then opposed APMA participating in the only venue in which those questions could be answered. However, this behavior is consistent with their constant obstructionism on meaningful action to improve the profession.

 

[Retrograde_Nail]

If you're referring to who I think you are, you're mistaken. He was the biggest proponent of ACGME and personally involved in gauging their interest over the past couple years.

I do not have any inside information on what happened at the BOT meeting last Monday evening. But I can tell you where the opposition is coming from; CPME and ABFAS Leadership.

I find their opposition to even have a discussion with ACGME, disingenuous. They claimed they had too many questions, but then opposed APMA participating in the only venue in which those questions could be answered. However, this behavior is consistent with their constant obstructionism on meaningful action to improve the profession.

CPME opposing makes the most sense. ACGME would come in and do everything posters on this board have been asking for which is close down schools, raise standards of entry into podiatry school, close down bad/weak residency programs. Would solve a lot of issues almost immediately.

 

[med2345]

Wow, 21 percent? I feel like that’s so abysmally low I have a hard to time believing that’s true. If it is, good lord I’m speechless. The fact that these exams were like 4 months ago and isn’t released is also crazy.

I think when I was a student most of the schools or students of the schools were posting their pass rates less than a few weeks after. And now somehow it’s just a ongoing mystery.

Imagine a MD/DO school with a 21 percent USMLE 1 pass. It would be the running joke for as long as medicine existed.

 

[SoleSucking]

So is the 21% pass rate actually real? I heard that too but thought yeah no way that’s true. If so, close them down.

 

[air bud]

There is like 20 something people in the most recent class I think. Shut it down.

 

[DexterMorganSK]

From the current APMA President via PM news:

"This summer, APMA became aware that the
Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical
Education (ACGME) has interest in exploring
accreditation of training programs outside
allopathic and osteopathic medicine. This interest
is part of ACGME’s business plan to
explore extending their accreditation programs to
a variety of other healthcare
professions.

After an initial discussion with ACGME, APMA
shared this information with the leadership
of its component organizations and with the
leadership of other large podiatric
organizations with a stake in residency training
including CPME, AACPM, COTH, ABPM,
ABFAS, and ACFAS. In recent weeks, we held
meetings with many key stakeholders within
the profession to discuss the pros and cons of
participating in an exploratory process with
ACGME. We also gathered written feedback from
stakeholders. The feedback was shared
with our Board of Trustees at their September
virtual meeting to determine whether and
how to move ahead.

The feedback gathered from the profession made
clear that while there is some
curiosity within the profession about pursuing
accreditation by ACGME, there also is
widespread uncertainty and apprehension about this
process. Stakeholders raised
concerns about autonomy, the impact for residency
programs and graduates, competing
strategic priorities, and more. Additionally,
there was no guarantee in the conversations to
date that ACGME was interested in creating parity
through accreditation.

Our board weighed these concerns and determined
that this question requires
significantly more input from the profession and
would ultimately need to be vetted by
our House of Delegates (HOD). Based on that
determination, the board voted at this time
not to participate further in the process with
ACGME. ACGME will continue to explore
accreditation beyond MDs and DOs through its
internal task force, but it does not intend to
engage or move forward with podiatry without
APMA’s cooperation on behalf of the field.

Matters of significant magnitude affecting the
profession, especially when there is no clear
consensus, should be debated in an open and
transparent process through the House of
Delegates. We recognize that there are many
opinions on this issue, and it’s essential that
all these voices are represented. To that end, we
encourage members to reach out to APMA
and those groups who represent you to provide
feedback. Additionally, APMA will review
our governance documents to address how issues of
magnitude come before the association in the
future.

Until the HOD provides direction on the issue of
ACGME accreditation, APMA will remain
laser-focused on the pressing strategic and
operational priorities our board and house have
approved, including student recruitment, advocacy
on behalf of the profession, continued
growth and development of the member value
proposition, support for our component
organizations, recognition of podiatry among the
public, our task force on the status of
podiatric education and training, the reimagining
of our educational offerings, and
operational effectiveness as an organization.
These initiatives require staff time, significant
member involvement, and resources to execute
effectively, and they have the
demonstrated support of our community of interest.

APMA gratefully acknowledges the many individuals
and organizations that answered
our call for input and took the time to provide
initial feedback on this matter in recent
weeks. It takes the entire podiatric community
coming together to effect change on
behalf of the profession. We look forward to
continued collaboration and support from
our partners, our components, and our individual
members as we tackle the most critical issues
facing podiatry"

 

[eyeeye_captain]

LCR bringing the receipts/heat.

Back when ACGME absorbed the DO structure, it wound up not changing all that much for them other than getting some crappy residencies closed (9/15 eye ones shut down, 2 more are circling the drain), which made it harder to match specialties. I think it was us, ENT, and neurosurg who had big numbers - I can’t find the percentages but they were lower for other specialties. They got a much more standardized (if still imperfect) training setup and still got to keep their faith healing stuff. They got to be equal but “unique”.

I suspect what ACGME is considering is something like OMFS. Some track where you can go the MD route but still leave a lot of wiggle room for if you don’t want to do additional years. It would be a pretty simple way to divide surgical and nonsurgical residencies if that were to become a thing since it’s been brought up quite a bit.

 

[Retrograde_Nail]

Problem with all of this is if we get accredited by ACGME does that mean MD/DO residents can apply for podiatry residencies?

They don't match into ortho but still want to do "ortho surgery" therefore they are applying for DPM residencies. Is that possible? If it is then you could potentially have DPM students who do everything they were asked to and not get a DPM residency because these residencies are accepting MD/DO candidates now.

 

[Homo sapien]

This is ****ing dumb.

These "leaders and visionaries" need to focus on raising the quality of residencies so all students can be guaranteed at least average training, lowering the class sizes to help the oversaturation, and paying their associates better, instead of getting riled up at this bull****

 

[deleted1218629]

LCR bringing the receipts/heat.

Back when ACGME absorbed the DO structure, it wound up not changing all that much for them other than getting some crappy residencies closed (9/15 eye ones shut down, 2 more are circling the drain), which made it harder to match specialties. I think it was us, ENT, and neurosurg who had big numbers - I can’t find the percentages but they were lower for other specialties. They got a much more standardized (if still imperfect) training setup and still got to keep their faith healing stuff. They got to be equal but “unique”.

I suspect what ACGME is considering is something like OMFS. Some track where you can go the MD route but still leave a lot of wiggle room for if you don’t want to do additional years. It would be a pretty simple way to divide surgical and nonsurgical residencies if that were to become a thing since it’s been brought up quite a bit.

Eye love that you are here

 

[ParNoMoney]

This is ****ing dumb.

These "leaders and visionaries" need to focus on raising the quality of residencies so all students can be guaranteed at least average training, lowering the class sizes to help the oversaturation, and paying their associates better, instead of getting riled up at this bull****

You are asking too much of the "leaders and visionaries." These folks use their positions to lead them to more money, and their vision is even more easy money. Improving training, adjusting class sizes and supporting better pay for associates is the antithesis of their vision.

 

[Homo sapien]

You are asking too much of the "leaders and visionaries." These folks use their positions to lead them to more money, and their vision is even more easy money. Improving training, adjusting class sizes and supporting better pay for associates is the antithesis of their vision.

Well **** us i guess

 

[SoleSucking]

APMA didn’t even tell us “the profession” about this before deciding no. Now that they’re called out on it they want to “have a discussion across the profession”

They’re likely just upset that we all know this now. I trust ABPM more than any other organization in this field because they seem the least corrupt but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Sole Badguy]

Problem with all of this is if we get accredited by ACGME does that mean MD/DO residents can apply for podiatry residencies?

They don't match into ortho but still want to do "ortho surgery" therefore they are applying for DPM residencies. Is that possible? If it is then you could potentially have DPM students who do everything they were asked to and not get a DPM residency because these residencies are accepting MD/DO candidates now.

Given that DOs can apply to MD residencies and vice versa...yeah I think so.

They can have at it if they want it. The bigger benefit would be that DPMs would be able to apply to other specialties - which would expand our post-residency options. But let's be real - unless any of us have nepo-baby connections in the more surgical aspects of our field (ortho? vascular? plastics?) I think we'd be doing primarily FM/IM. Which is still worlds better than what we're dealing with right now, and would align well with our clinic-based care anyways.

 

[GreenHousePub]

If I was an apma member I would be upset - some people are paying good money to that organization

 

[Dermato Fight Club]

If I was an apma member I would be upset - some people are paying good money to that organization

I will give them the benefit of the doubt and see what the House of delegates decides to do.

Honest question, is anyone here not for ACGME exploring this issue?

 

[GreenHousePub]

I wouldn't know why acgme would even want to deal with it, unless they somehow make money in the process. The AMA, AAOS all have campaigns against podiatry, why would the ACGME be any different?

It's probably so they can issue a report that podiatry lacks training and shut down the residencies, putting our profession out of work.

 

[shadesofgrey]

I wouldn't know why acgme would even want to deal with it, unless they somehow make money in the process. The AMA, AAOS all have campaigns against podiatry, why would the ACGME be any different?

It's probably so they can issue a report that podiatry lacks training and shut down the residencies, putting our profession out of work.

I sometimes imagine a world where podiatrists are suddenly barred from legally practicing. I giggle thinking of all the wailing from the local ortho group that they now have to cover diabetic foot infections. The faces of the annoyed PCP's and ED teams when every other old person is like, "can you trim my nails for me? And make sure you get the corners!". I think it would almost be worth it to ban podiatry for this alone.

 

[diabeticfootdr]

Problem with all of this is if we get accredited by ACGME does that mean MD/DO residents can apply for podiatry residencies?

They don't match into ortho but still want to do "ortho surgery" therefore they are applying for DPM residencies. Is that possible? If it is then you could potentially have DPM students who do everything they were asked to and not get a DPM residency because these residencies are accepting MD/DO candidates now.

That's an interesting question. We don't know until we sit at the table and help put this together.

It might not be a bad thing. What if unfilled spots could accept MDs/DOs? There might be 1/2 of the residency spots going unfilled with the class of 2029 or 2030. We'd have to protect enough spots only for DPMs equal to the class size. Because unlike MD/DO, that is the only residency a DPM could do. If an MD/DO doesn't match into orthopedic surgery or urology, they could always match into another specialty.

I don't have enough information to support or reject the idea. But it is an interesting thought.

The main take away here is that we have an opportunity to sit at the table and shape the future of our profession and control the quality, just like many on SDN have proposed. This is not the MDs controlling us. We brought this to them to see if they were interested and they said they were and started the task force.

The opposition in podiatry, doesn't even want to explore this. Sad.

 

[Retrograde_Nail]

I like the idea of working with ACGME but it feels like it was rushed and only a small group went ahead and spoke with them without including all major stakeholders. I don’t think a few DPMs should get to speak for all of us.

All important stakeholders holders should be involved which is ABFAS, ACFAS, ABPM, ASPS, APMA, CPME etc.

Then come to a consensus agreement if this is right for podiatry.

 

[diabeticfootdr]

I like the idea of working with ACGME but it feels like it was rushed and only a small group went ahead and spoke with them without including all major stakeholders. I don’t think a few DPMs should get to speak for all of us.

All important stakeholders holders should be involved which is ABFAS, ACFAS, ABPM, ASPS, APMA, CPME etc.

Then come to a consensus agreement if this is right for podiatry.

I totally agree with you. But keep in mind, this was not an agreement to proceed with ACGME accreditation. It was merely an invitation to sit at the table and have a conversation about it and conduct due diligence.

The only entity that can change the accrediting organization for podiatric residencies is the APMA HOD, it's part of the Bylaws. That's why we turned it over to APMA once ACGME expressed interest in doing it.

The Task Force would've conducted the due diligence and brought it back to a larger group of all stakeholders in the profession, then it would have to be deliberated and discussed at HOD and voted on. None of the stakeholders can make a decision without all the information which would be obtained from the Task Force, nor should we expect that.

Now, we have to present the exploration of this to the HOD to vote on whether to conduct due diligence. Seems silly to me to need the HOD to vote on just having a conversation.

 

[eyeeye_captain]

RE: took ‘er jerbs vibes, unless your leadership made major concessions, I still think it would be similar to OMFS where there’s not a solely MD/DO path to residency. We gotta stay in our lane.

Even if there is a way, there’s the gatekeeping effect. Is the pod PD really going to rank an MD/DO higher than DPMs? It can happen, but I doubt it would be common having seen the continued trends since our merger.

I can’t see any way that DPM grads would be allowed to match another specialty without schools going through LCME first, again like the tooth bros.

I think it would be nice if everybody can talk, and then if things work, fantastic. If they don’t, status quo. Worth a try.

 

[Carbon13]

RE: took ‘er jerbs vibes, unless your leadership made major concessions, I still think it would be similar to OMFS where there’s not a solely MD/DO path to residency. We gotta stay in our lane.

Even if there is a way, there’s the gatekeeping effect. Is the pod PD really going to rank an MD/DO higher than DPMs? It can happen, but I doubt it would be common having seen the continued trends since our merger.

I can’t see any way that DPM grads would be allowed to match another specialty without schools going through LCME first, again like the tooth bros.

I think it would be nice if everybody can talk, and then if things work, fantastic. If they don’t, status quo. Worth a try.

Yes. I think this is the most realistic scenario I've heard thus far and could be a real shot in the arm for podiatry.

However,
Would the current pod gods ever relinquish such power ???? I doubt it.
Not enough financial incentive for the old heads that are currently in charge.
They could have straightened this mess up years ago but had other thoughts.
There is always hope.

 

[deleted1218629]

DING

It makes complete sense that the APMA would deny this request. It undermines everything that they wanna do. The people involved at the top of the chain are involved with private equity groups.

It does not take a genius to understand this is where podiatry is trending in the private practice world. We are seeing the creation of multiple large private equity super groups forming across the nation. Pretty soon the whole entire profession and the private practice world will be five to ten super groups and that’s it.

Why give up the power to the MD/DO crowd when they’ve got an amazing pyramid scheme going on? That is all what private equity is.

They can afford the pay associates now, a higher base salary than they ever saw in the traditional podiatry, private practice world, but the bonus structure is hard to attain and makes the owners/partners a lot of money.

All of this goes away if we give up the power to the MD/DO crowd. They will shut down schools. They would shut down residency programs. Then boom there goes the endless supply of associates who are just looking for a job to pay off their overpriced loans.

The latest issue of APMA news on my doorstep. The feature article is on selling your practice to a supergroup (PE). Multiple APMA leadership quoted in the article