Paul Kempen, MD, PhD comments on Medical Economics article, “MOC changes aim to lessen burden on physicians, but debate continues” :
I continue to be astounded that the ABIM refuses to openly debate the topic in an open forum. The Benjamin Rush Society invited the ABIM and ABMS to debate MOC in their home town of Philadelphia last April-they failed to come (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AetMD0OYVkY). The ABIM does NOT want to debate the issues openly in a neutral forum because the whole extortion process is unwanted by physicians in General, and it provides no index of quality. The ABIM and ABMS are trying to introduce these changes under the radar through the gradual program of lobby congress and hide from Open discussion. MOC is simply a money making extortion program self-serving to the certification industry. The ABIM itself concluded as early as 1986 and themselves published in 2000 the fact that voluntary MOC would not be possible (ANN INT MED 2000; 133:202-08 . THAT is why they imposed it with artificially restricting the certification to 10 then 8 and now to Continuous subscriptions to MOC to maintain a certificate that they themselves deem to be “VOLUNTARY”.
I hereby OPENLY invite the ABIM to debate ME and my colleagues in any open format before practicing physicians any time and any place. I would invite Medical Economics to sponsor such a debate and poll the general physician population in attendance to finally clarify openly the disgraceful and unethical extortion of physicians for corporate executive’s gains. The fact that Dr Baron and the ABIM actively excluded comments to their website that they do NOT want to hear is testimonial to these facts stated clearly above-they only hear what they want to hear and I quote: “Baron readily acknowledges that some dissenters’ comments were not allowed on the ABIM forum. “It’s not an open forum. It’s a moderated forum, and it is moderated according to principles that are posted on the site,” he says. “We welcome input on the program, but if people are going to take a subject area and post comments that say there shouldn’t be any program, people will not bother to read the comments or engage in the conversation.” “When people say all we care about is money and that the program should be done away with, we simply don’t regard that as a comment that is engaged with how to make MOC better.
We know there are people think there should not be MOC and they have lots of places on the Internet where they make that point. We are trying to manage a civil discourse on a subject on which there is a range of opinion,” he says. He points out that many comments critical of MOC were allowed past the moderator. “It is one thing to offer specific criticisms of the program, but another to say there shouldn’t be a program and we don’t see the role of this conversation to be to give a platform to that,” Baron says.” – See more at: http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/moc-changes-aim-lessen-burden-physicians-debate-continues#comment-4373