With all due respect to your comments, the people who replied to your queries are also your colleagues and practicing in the field. You won't hear from anyone who has taken the lipid boards, because, the vast majority do not take it, which is why. Now if you are talking about getting job opportunities based on lipid boards, then it can be one of two things>>>>>Cardiology recruitment has gone to hell or you are looking at academic jobs only, in which case you are fully justified in giving lipid boards, completing a preventive cardiology fellowship, women health fellowship, etc as there are positions to accommodate your interests in those fields. However, the majority of fellows/practicing cardiologists are not going to be giving these esoteric boards just to be 'better at practice' when they can do the same by keeping up to date with all major guidelines and MOCs. As for your argument that there is a difference between boarded and non-boarded physicians, it may be true with Echo, but with lipids, I stand by my statement that for the most part of your day-to-day practice, you are going to prescribe statins/zetia/vascepa/PCSK9/siRNA drugs as and when they come [if your patient is lucky to have them approved]. Anything more fancy than this, no one really cares as much. You can harp all about Lp(a) and its CV risk, but unless there is a therapeutic option for treating the same [with appropriate data to back it up], there will be nothing you can practically do. A physician is going to be good if he/she puts in the effort to keep him/herself up to date with necessary information. It is not so dependent on boards as much as it is on the physician, especially in niche fields such as lipidology.
