Dr. Paul Kempen replies to report that ABMS held if’s “first 2-day Forum on Organizational Quality Improvements, a poster session outlined 27 examples of successful quality improvement initiatives, such as a program to reduce adverse drug events and another to educate pregnant women with congenital heart disease.”
As the ABMS has no oversight and the production of these “practice improvement modules occurs to facilitate and finance ABMS corporate programs, it is important to realize this unregulated industry is using patients (and physicians) as guinea pigs without their knowledge, informed consent or IRB approval. This referenced study illustrates the problem, turning a QI program into a MOC product, with retrospective IRB deferral to enable publication. The Medical Journals, being infiltrated by ABMS personnel will approve such studies facilitating their profits-studies in no way scientifically based or producing results.
Patients carry all costs & injuries while corporate endeavors ensure bias to insure “positive outcomes” while circumventing the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki and probably any institutional guideline for research subjects as well. This is not a singular example of corporate profits which would NOT be tolerated for any pharmaceutical industry either: (Pediatrics 2014; Jun 16:2013-2643.)
The study was noted to be VERY expensive, funded by a grant which may not continue when implemented under MOC, with no indication of patient/insurance charges or post study outcome maintenance (Hawthorn effect only?). Participant physicians were “paid” by MOC credits for cooperating. The only group demonstrating (questionable) any statistical significance “although because of delays in getting necessary approvals,” failed to meet the full study criteria also! It is of concern that such “study” is now possible without IRB controls in the care of CHILDREN!
Other studies are written by the President of the Board (earning $727,885/year) and executive editor of the journal, credit the Board as sponsor, published in the Boards OWN journal, extoll recertification value and also exclaim, (get this): Conflict of interest: none declared. (J Am Board Fam Med 2014;27:383–390.)
It is time to expose this corporate regulatory capture of medicine for the business it is and remove all ability to force compliance or participation. As a competitive choice this business of recertification is unnecessary and would fail completely in any competitive market! Editorial staff do not even enforce international conflicts of interest guidelines!