Osteopathic pathology boards

[DOPathologist]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Wow what a passionate thread. I haven't been on this site for years, I was just looking for posts of others' perspectives on the MOC for ABP, and stumbled upon this thread.

I am a DO, trained in Philly, did not complete an internship because I frankly had no desire, 4 year AP/CP residency and dermpath fellowship. COMLEX only, no USMLE and certified in all three by the ABP. The AP board is not tough, neither is DP. I studied mostly for CP when I certified for AP/CP, and it was tough but I was ready for it. I have not had any issue with the ABP in particular. Personally, I would never take a osteopathic dermpath board. I do not see the point after I went through the ABP process. But I agree, the choice depends on the individual.

I do have a beef that I'd like to voice. I am sure others have brought this up before. The grandfather clause of pathologists or any other physician for that matter, not being accountable for MOC and recert prior to 2006 (in the case of pathology) is total B.S. Every physician in this country practicing medicine in any specialty, old or young, in practice for 30 years or 3 should be held to the same standard as far as MOC goes. In my opinion if MOC was mandated, across the board, a large amount of jobs would open up in this country for eager new pathologists out of training to fill, simply because a group pathologists enjoying the pleasure of having grandfathered certificates at the end of their career, would not be able to meet or bother with MOC requirements. Does the current mandate make any sense? It goes against the purpose of MOC to have a huge population of physicians exempt from it. Sure, as years go by the number of MOC participants will outweigh the grandfathered, but that will take awhile for that to happen.

I agree. The ones with the power grandfathered themselves from MOC. I think you should create your own thread with this topic.

 

[mlw03]

Historically the AOA and AMA have differences. The AMA would not accept osteopaths as real physicians for many years so the AOA was born.

You didn't address my question, as I did not ask about the origins of the AOA. I don't care about politics, but I don't like the fact that DO med students get to compete for both allopath residency spots plus osteopath residency spots, which allopath med students are not able to apply for. I've worked with DO pathologists and know other do physicians, and have no problem with them.

My issue is that either you're equivalent (which I think you are, for the record) and thus there should be a single set of residencies for all candidates, or you're not, and then have separate paths, and let patients and the market decide which is better.

You have a lot of passion for this topic, and I respect that, but I don't believe DOs should be able to have their cake and eat it too. If you want to be equals, then be equals and lets all do the same thing post-med school. Or do you own thing, but if so, then don't ask folks to think everything is the same.

This argument is a lot more important in primary care specialties.

 

[DOPathologist]

dermpathdoc:

i think some of the anti-DO sentiment you note by MDs relates to the fact that DOs are eligible to take the same residency spots as MDs PLUS their own DO spots for many specialties, such as EM, IM, peds. also relating to the issue of reduncnacy. if a DO pathologist is the same as an MD pathologist, why is there a need for a separate certifying body?

You didn't address my question, as I did not ask about the origins of the AOA. I don't care about politics, but I don't like the fact that DO med students get to compete for both allopath residency spots plus osteopath residency spots, which allopath med students are not able to apply for. I've worked with DO pathologists and know other do physicians, and have no problem with them.

My issue is that either you're equivalent (which I think you are, for the record) and thus there should be a single set of residencies for all candidates, or you're not, and then have separate paths, and let patients and the market decide which is better.

You have a lot of passion for this topic, and I respect that, but I don't believe DOs should be able to have their cake and eat it too. If you want to be equals, then be equals and lets all do the same thing post-med school. Or do you own thing, but if so, then don't ask folks to think everything is the same.

This argument is a lot more important in primary care specialties.

"...why is there a need for a separate certifying body?"
I do not know how to answer your question but I do agree with your point. There is no "need for a separate certifying body" but one exists. There is also a 3rd Board Certifying Company, American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc (AAPS) http://www.aapsus.org/, but right now they do not have a board for pathology. So now that we all know that there are 3 separate board certifying companies, the arguments described above, MD vs DO, is a moot point. Also, there are so many "hoops" to jump through in this medical field, I am going to take advantage of the opportunities when they are available. "

I don't make the rules and everyone wants a piece of the pie so I am going to get a leg up when I can get my cut."