Rand Paul M.D. wins Kentucky Senate seat!!

[patel2]

I don't know if you guys are political, but Rand Paul Ophthamologist is Kentucky's new senator!!!

Can't say the guy will stand up for the interests of your profession though, since he let his board-certification of ABO lapse in 2005 and formed his own rival board the national board of ophthamology, to protest the fact that the older docs grandfathered themselves in while forcing younger ones to test every 10 years....apparently Dr. Paul sent hostile letters to the american board of opthamology through the 90s !

Still, though, now here's a guy who will stand up to Barack Obama and fight for us to repeal/defund ObamaCare!

Thoughts on the candidate's positions or his views on the ABO?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[eyeguy81]

Oh, and he's also psychotic

 

[KHE]

I don't know if you guys are political, but Rand Paul Ophthamologist is Kentucky's new senator!!!

Can't say the guy will stand up for the interests of your profession though, since he let his board-certification of ABO lapse in 2005 and formed his own rival board the national board of ophthamology, to protest the fact that the older docs grandfathered themselves in while forcing younger ones to test every 10 years....apparently Dr. Paul sent hostile letters to the american board of opthamology through the 90s !

Still, though, now here's a guy who will stand up to Barack Obama and fight for us to repeal/defund ObamaCare!

Thoughts on the candidate's positions or his views on the ABO?

It should also be noted that John Boozeman, OD of Arkansas is the new senator elect from that state.

So it would appear that eye care has at least TWO allies in the Senate now. That's can't be a bad thing.

 

[Mirror Form]

I don't know if you guys are political, but Rand Paul Ophthamologist is Kentucky's new senator!!!

Can't say the guy will stand up for the interests of your profession though, since he let his board-certification of ABO lapse in 2005 and formed his own rival board the national board of ophthamology, to protest the fact that the older docs grandfathered themselves in while forcing younger ones to test every 10 years....apparently Dr. Paul sent hostile letters to the american board of opthamology through the 90s !

Yep, that's b/c the ABO developed a ridiculous double standard and started ripping off young ophthalmologists. Most of us bend over and take it, but Rand Paul actually stood up to them which is pretty impressive.

If anything, that tells me he is someone who will stand up for the interests of healthcare providers.

 

[Mirror Form]

Oh, and he's also psychotic

Your post is a wonderful microcosm of the MSM's compaign against Rand Paul.

 

[patel2]

Your post is a wonderful microcosm of the MSM's compaign against Rand Paul.

Glad to see some doctors supporting Rand's candidacy. Despite the MSM's talking points, Rand's core ideas are actually incredibly mainstream. A balanced budget amendment, and an openness to cut spending on EVERYTHING on the table (including social security, medicare, military/defense cuts, discretionary spending). He has even mentioned how he wouldn't mind going all in to shake things up in Washington and returning to his private practice after a term.

Has anyone on this board know anything about Rand's rival board? The media (specifically MSNBC) tried to make him sound like he's a "fake doctor" who's basically practicing without a license, because he rejected the board certification of ABO. I know they are insane and that Rand is perfectly qualified, but does ABO actually keep an eye surgeon accountable to current knowledge or is it more symbolic than anyting else?

 

[Mirror Form]

Has anyone on this board know anything about Rand's rival board? The media (specifically MSNBC) tried to make him sound like he's a "fake doctor" who's basically practicing without a license, because he rejected the board certification of ABO.

I know, it's sad to hear all my colleagues from the east coast talk about how insane rand paul is. Then I ask what they know about him, and it's literally only two things:
1. A random volunteer supporting rand paul head stomped someone who charged him.
2. He's not ABO certified.

That's literally all they know about him. Typical of physicians and politics though. We're a bunch of easily brain washed idealists who think we're smart b/c we test well.

I know they are insane and that Rand is perfectly qualified, but does ABO actually keep an eye surgeon accountable to current knowledge or is it more symbolic than anyting else?

It's not either actually. It's just about money and power. Previously, the ABO did not require re-certification exams. Then they changed the rules several years ago so that only ophthalmologists who passed they're boards after a certain date (i.e., the younger generation of ophthalmologists) had to re-certify every 10 years. Of course re-certification requires spending tons of money to take an easy exam that is a joke compared to the actual boards. Hardly anybody ever fails it. But it generates lots of income and power for the ABO.

Most ophthalmologists, like most doctors, just bend over and take it when groups like politicians and lawyers screw them. Rand Paul is one of the few doctors who actually did something about it.

 

[KHE]

Most ophthalmologists, like most doctors, just bend over and take it when groups like politicians and lawyers screw them. Rand Paul is one of the few doctors who actually did something about it.

While it's true that it's unfair to grandfather in all the other docs will making the younger ones spend all kinds of dough, it seems though that the idea of Rand's competing board was poorly implemented and not widely accepted.

If it's known, what steps if any did Dr. Paul take to make a more level playing field before starting up the competing board?

 

[Visionary]

While it's true that it's unfair to grandfather in all the other docs will making the younger ones spend all kinds of dough, it seems though that the idea of Rand's competing board was poorly implemented and not widely accepted.

If it's known, what steps if any did Dr. Paul take to make a more level playing field before starting up the competing board?

Paul is the most well known, because of the competing board, but many other ophthalmologists also protested the move by the ABO. Letters were written, words were spoken, but the leaders of the ABO moved forward. The MOC exam is, indeed, a joke. Talk to anyone who has taken it. A first year resident could ace it cold. Having CME requirements is enough to keep us current. A ridiculously simple exam every 10 years? That has to be about money.

 

[KHE]

Paul is the most well known, because of the competing board, but many other ophthalmologists also protested the move by the ABO. Letters were written, words were spoken, but the leaders of the ABO moved forward. The MOC exam is, indeed, a joke. Talk to anyone who has taken it. A first year resident could ace it cold. Having CME requirements is enough to keep us current. A ridiculously simple exam every 10 years? That has to be about money.

Does Rand Paul's board also offer certification for life, or is their a MOC component involved in his? If so, is it "ridiculously simple" as well?

 

[patel2]

Well I don't think there is any way to assess how tough his exam is, but if the ABO recertification test is a joke, then I imagine his can't be any worse.

He makes people take it every 10 years too (someone re-certified a few months ago via his board), and has always supported the ABO concept of re-certifying every 10 years to keep doctors accountable. I don't think he charges much, if anything for someone to take the test. It's just that like others have said, to have a bunch of power/money hungry older establishment guys exempt themselves while telling younger people to take the test and pay exhorbitant fees is ridiculous.

 

[patel2]

thought I'd bump for the good work Dr. Paul is doing in the Senate. I thought perhaps we could take a moment of solidarity or a moment of silence to honor Dr. Paul's contribution to eye surgery.

 

[RestoreSight]

Do they teach sarcasm in med school these days? Please tell me your not being serious

 

[PBEA]

off topic, but ophtho's problem with ABO (money and power) is an almost EXACT mirror of the problem that optometry is facing. Our own organizations are attempting to have ODs take a test every ten years as well, and all I can deduce is that it is about money/power. Most ODs have not fallen for this ruse, so I was wondering why most MDs have? Would MDs face termination of hospital priveliges, loss of insurance panels, other limited job prospects, etc? or was it something less tangible (type A person, ego, etc)?

 

[patel2]

Do they teach sarcasm in med school these days? Please tell me your not being serious

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXkxXwnjWik[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Dusn]

Would MDs face termination of hospital priveliges, loss of insurance panels, other limited job prospects, etc?

Probably. When applying for hospital privileges this year I had to provide them with a criminal background check, health check, drug screen, fingerprints, medical licenses, DEA, letters from multiple other ophthalmologists and my program attesting my competency in each procedure that I would perform, and have board certification or be eligible for certification. If you already know enough to pass the boards, it just seems more convenient to suck it up, pay the fee, take the test and get certified.

PBEA, I think ophthalmologists need to have hospital privileges to qualify for medicare reimbursement. I was wondering, how do optoms qualify for medicare reimbursement without hospital privileges?

And on a related note, what do you all think about how obama-care will affect ophthalmologists. More patients having insurance seems on the surface to be a good thing. Obviously more people can get healthcare, which is good, and on a financial level, there are more people for us to treat and it should be easier to fill our schedules.

 

[xanthomondo]

off topic, but ophtho's problem with ABO (money and power) is an almost EXACT mirror of the problem that optometry is facing. Our own organizations are attempting to have ODs take a test every ten years as well, and all I can deduce is that it is about money/power. Most ODs have not fallen for this ruse, so I was wondering why most MDs have? Would MDs face termination of hospital priveliges, loss of insurance panels, other limited job prospects, etc? or was it something less tangible (type A person, ego, etc)?

Most other MD specialties have to take an exam every 10 years, right? So I think it's harder for MDs to argue that we shouldn't when everyone else is doing it.

 

[mydodger]

off topic, but ophtho's problem with ABO (money and power) is an almost EXACT mirror of the problem that optometry is facing. Our own organizations are attempting to have ODs take a test every ten years as well, and all I can deduce is that it is about money/power. Most ODs have not fallen for this ruse, so I was wondering why most MDs have? Would MDs face termination of hospital priveliges, loss of insurance panels, other limited job prospects, etc? or was it something less tangible (type A person, ego, etc)?

The best thing your OD organizations could do for you is figure out a way to keep from training so many ODs that everywhere is saturated. OD schools are creating a big over-supply problem for you all.

And I don't think any of us have a problem with recertification every ten years. It keeps us up to date and is an incentive to continue learning. The problem that Paul and many others had with the ABO is that the old boys club decided to opt out of the rules they made for everyone else which is completely unfair.

 

[Zorro12]

off topic, but ophtho's problem with ABO (money and power) is an almost EXACT mirror of the problem that optometry is facing. Our own organizations are attempting to have ODs take a test every ten years as well, and all I can deduce is that it is about money/power. Most ODs have not fallen for this ruse, so I was wondering why most MDs have? Would MDs face termination of hospital priveliges, loss of insurance panels, other limited job prospects, etc? or was it something less tangible (type A person, ego, etc)?

I think the problems are different. Historically with Ophthalmology you obtained a lifetime certificate of board certification. Now board certification is time limited to 10 years. Recently, the boards of medical examiners are saying board cert is a way to show you provide quality of care and proof you are a "lifetime learner". In the very near future states are going to use board cert when applying for a medical licensure. Obviously, there are some board cert docs that do not provide quality care, but states are looking for a way to show the public they are "weeding out" the bad doctors. Currently, there are no states mandating board certification, but I am sure it won't be long and the older docs will once again be grandfathered in. This was a big problem with Ophthalmogy b/c we were saying everybody should re-certify every 10 years (and pay the $$$ to do so). The decision makers / good old boys said it was illegal to take away their lifetime cert, so instead of reading Archives of Ophthalmology they continued to read Field and Stream.

In my opinion the ODs are a different story. The Medical Specialty Boards established board cert as a way to make sure practicing docs from different residency programs all had the same basic level of knowledge. This could be what the AOA is doing, but more than likely it is about the money. Once a few ODs get boarded in an area they are going to put "Board Certified" on their website in 50 point font and so will begin the war of I am smarter than my competition (so come to my office). That will generate an ungodly amount of cash if you are going to pay the same amount we do over 10 years due to the sheer number ODs.

To answer your question my practice requires us all to be board certified. To my knowledge, hospitals and insurance don't care, yet. But again with the bean counters , affordable care act etc.... pointing to (perceived) quality care, board cert may play a role in the future.

 

[PBEA]

PBEA, I think ophthalmologists need to have hospital privileges to qualify for medicare reimbursement. I was wondering, how do optoms qualify for medicare reimbursement without hospital privileges?

And on a related note, what do you all think about how obama-care will affect ophthalmologists. More patients having insurance seems on the surface to be a good thing. Obviously more people can get healthcare, which is good, and on a financial level, there are more people for us to treat and it should be easier to fill our schedules.

actually I think its the hospital that would require you to be enrolled as a participating provider, and not medicare requiring ophthos (or any MD) to have hospital privileges. Like any other provider , ODs also do not require privileges.

As for Obamacare, I doubt anybody will notice much if any difference.

 

[guttata]

Most hospitals will require you to be board eligible or board certified. Some require board certification within a certain number of years. Insurances ask for this information as well, and could possibly weed you out if you do not become board certified in a certain number of years - especially in a saturated market (just speculation on my part). Board certification arguably confers some level of competency. When I took the Osler mock orals, there were definitely a few that should not have been practicing any type of medicine (based on their answers).

Not sure Obama care will really change anything since most will be covered under Medicaid. Based on experience, most Medicaid patients fall into two categories: either they are extremely grateful for your services or they have a great sense of entitlement. Some refuse to pay their $3.00 co-payment and then demand to be seen. Overall, Medicaid reimbursement is atrocious. If Obamacare is not repealed, it will not be the lack of coverage that will be the problem. The problem will be a lack of access to care - (due to dismal reimbursements).