AOA commits DO member money to lobby for MOL requirements, but why?

A friend of IP4PI writes in:

The AOA just passed a resolution committing our membership dollars to lobby for Maintenance of Licensure requirements [overseen by the AOA].  I was not able to be in the committee hearing, but in our state meeting we voted against it.  On the floor of the house, when I expected our leadership to speak the will of the caucus, they did not speak at all. All states were silent as to the issue and it passed quickly without any objection.  In fact, it appeared that most delegates were not yet awake.  The only comment I got when I asked why we did not defend ourselves was that MOL is inevitable, and we have to vote for it if we want a place at the table. When will doctors learn that if they are told to advocate for their own destruction in order to make it less painful, it means they were never at the table.  We just helped by marinating ourselves for our place ON the table?

[Note from editor: Further demonstrating the AOA’s disregard for members, a provision in the resolutions directing the AOA to “make OCC more manageable and economically feasible was struck.]


H-627 MAINTENANCE OF LICENSURE (H638-A/14) Resolution No. H-627

Be it resolved: The American Osteopathic Association (AOA)

(1) supports the development of state level maintenance of licensure (MOL) programs to demonstrate that ALL physicians are competent TO provide quality care THAT INCORPORATES RELEVANT TECHNOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS over the course of their career. Flexible pathways for achieving MOL should be maintained. The requirements for MOL should balance transparency with privacy protection and not be overly burdensome or costly to physicians or state licensing boards; 

(2) Continues to address and promote physician competency through the teaching of core competencies at the predoctoral and postdoctoral levels as well as ongoing physician assessment through Osteopathic Continuous Certification (OCC) and the AOA Clinical Assessment Program (CAP) or its equivalent;

(3) Continues to work with State Osteopathic Affiliates, the American Association of Osteopathic Examiners and other stakeholders to establish, AND implement MOL policies that promote patient safety and the delivery of high quality of care;

(4)WILL THROUGH ITS BUREAUS, COUNCILS AND COMMITTEES, CONTINUE TO ENSURE THAT OCC IS RECOGNIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, STATE GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES AND CREDENTIALING BODIES AS EQUIVALENT TO OTHER NATIONAL CERTIFYING BODIES’ “MAINTENANCE” OR “CONTINUOUS” CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS.;

(5) WHILE SUPPORTING THE USE OF BOARD CERTIFICATION AS A  RECOGNITION OF QUALITY AND EXCELLENCE, SIGNIFYING THE HIGHEST PHYSICIAN ACHIEVEMENT IN A PARTICULAR SPECIALTY; OPPOSES ANY EFFORTS TO REQUIRE OCC AS A CONDITION OF MEDICAL LICENSURE.;

(6) THE AOA COLLABORATES WITH ENTITIES PROPERLY QUALIFIED FOR AND TASKED WITH DECISION-MAKING REGARDING INSURANCE PAYMENT, HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES, NETWORK PARTICIPATION, PAYMENT MALPRACTICE INSURANCE COVERAGE, PHYSICIAN EMPLOYMENT, TO DETERMINE THE ROLE OF PHYSICIAN BOARD CERTIFICATION AND OCC OR OTHER “MAINTENANCE” OF CERTIFICATION” PROGRAMS IN SUCH DECISIONS.;

(7) CONTINUES TO INNOVATE AND IMPROVE THE OCC PROCESS.

APPROVED

https://osteopathic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-Ad-Hoc-Committee-Report-WITHACTION.pdf

Comments Due 9/23 on Proposed Rule Requiring Certification for Compact Licensure

As we’ve warned before, The Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, is not going to solve the problem it claims to fix. It simply creates a new bureaucratic entity with little meaningful accountability.

The Commission in control of the Compact appears to be making a minor concession on the issue of MOC in an upcoming rule. The proposed rule currently under consideration requires that a physician seeking Compact licensure:

Holds specialty certification or a time-unlimited specialty certificate recognized by the ABMS or the AOA’s Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists. The specialty certification or a time unlimited specialty certificate does not have to be maintained once a physician is initially determined to be eligible for expedited licensure through the Compact.

Because of the above wording, the Commission will now claim they aren’t requiring MOC for Compact participation. However as board certification is required at the time of initial determination of eligibility, physicians not participating in onerous recertification schemes when applying for a compact license may find their ability to obtain a license via the compact in jeopardy.
Continue reading

Recertification: a test publisher’s attempt to take over authority in medicine

Guest post from Carlisle Holland, D.O.

The change to requiring recertification was demanded at the time by the younger generation of graduates, not the idea of those who had board certification for life. The cut off of requiring it was cited as unfair at the time, but the ‘higher standards’ were deemed worth the period of adjustment to such a change, as board certification was considered an intellectual achievement in itself, and worthy of the credit for knowing the information that well, a credential.

The recertification was a change in the intent of board certification itself and a perversion of its meaning. And it does not prove proficiency nor competency in a specialty to pass retesting every few years. What if they pass it and do not keep retaking it? Board Certified no more? And it confuses the meaning of Board Certified and changes it from a Lifetime Achievement like a Medical Degree, a CREDENTIAL, into a Temporary Pass, which is not an intellectual achievement, but a carrot-stick to force physicians to attend medical
meetings these organizations run. Continue reading

Resolved: End Re-certification Abuse

Resolution on Re-Certification Sent to NJAOPS HOD

To:       Robert Bowen, Executive Director, NJAOPS

Paul Morris, D.O. Speaker of the House, NJAOPS
Robert Pedowitz, D.O.,President, NJAOPS
Michelina Desantis, D.O., President-Elect, NJAOPS
Ira Monka, D.O., Member, AOA Board of Trustees
Al Talone, D.O., Chairman, JOPAC

Re:        Proposed Resolution on Re-Certification

Date:    Feb 10, 2016

RESOLUTION

Whereas Board Certification was always intended to be a one time accomplishment based upon completion of a course of intensive training, clinical experience and study, followed by an examination and Continue reading

$8.5 Million Judgement Against MDVIP, Is ABIM Next?

Paul Kempen, MD, PhD writes in:

Please check these stories from Feb Modern Healthcare (links below). I think application of this information to the ABIM and ABMS would be a new and possibly very effective strategy. If a concierge firm can loose $8.5 million for essentially false advertisement-the ABMS “higher standards better care” is also false advertisement and THEY actively sell their certification based on “quality indicator” to patients and CONGRESS! Hundreds to Thousands of ABMS certified docs commit malpractice each year-not better medicine!

The second article indicates the FTC and the US Justice Department’s Antitrust Division should also be willing to investigate the ABMS for clear waste of funds as the same “Quality indicator” lie. The AAPS could stand to win MiIlions from a Qui Tam suit BECAUSE the FEDs PAID millions to doctors for nothing under the 4 years of PQRS-MOC and because it was now discontinued before the feds could introduce large penalties for NOT doing MOC, this was all a waste of federal Medicare dollars. I demonstrated per CMS FOI data the $1 million was spent in 2011 alone on MOC PQRS.

Antitrust enforcers study impact of new models on competition
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150221/MAGAZINE/302219947

Concierge firms rattled by med mal award
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150221/MAGAZINE/302219969

How Practicing Physicians Would Restore Affordability, Promote Patient Choice, and Retain Quality in Health Care

CLICK HERE for PDF version of plan.

Prepared by the National Physician Coalition for Freedom in Medicine- March 25 & 26, 2015

IMG_4346Practicing physicians want patients to be able to access the highest quality care at the best value.  

  • Empower the patient to preserve the patient-physician relationship, allowing patients to choose their physicians and treatments.
  • Empower the patient to choose to pay directly for medical services without insurance penalties.
  • Encourage individual patient responsibility to reduce overall costs.
  • Empower patients by making competitively priced insurance available for all to purchase as protection against catastrophic loss.
  • Charity should be local and left to the communities and the people. 

To eliminate barriers to compassionate care, we, the practicing physicians of the United States, respectfully submit to Congress the following sound concepts and principles that we are certain will achieve the aforementioned ends;

Continue reading

Time for the FSMB to Dissolve and Go Away. We don’t need it.

Dr. Ken Christman weighs in on FSMB & Interstate Licensure Compact:

So, what good is telemedicine if the Texas Medical Board is going to prevent doctors from prescribing? Perhaps the TMB should advise the FSMB (also headquartered in Texas) that the Interstate Compact is useless in advancing telemedicine if doctors are not able to prescribe! And, while the TMB is on the phone to FSMB, perhaps it can urge FSMB’s CEO, Dr. Humayun Chaudhry, to obtain a license to practice medicine in Texas. After all, if Dr. Chaudhry lists himself as an Associate Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern, he really should have a license to practice in that state.

Oh, yes, and if Dr. Chaudhry is issued a license to practice medicine, it would also be neat if he could participate in MOC. After all, his Interstate Compact defines a “doctor” as one who is specialty board certified. For all practical purposes, as grandfathered physicians retire, this will in essence mean that a “physician”, according to Chaudhry’s definition, is one who participates in MOC. I suppose that in Texas one can be on the medical school faculty without needing a license to practice medicine. Or, perhaps, if one is CEO of FSMB, he can mandate all sorts of things for fellow physicians, but then exempt himself. Chaudhry appears to fall short of his own definition of “doctor”.

The good news is that medical board of Missouri has voted AGAINST participation in the Interstate Compact. Great. 49 to go. South Dakota votes tomorrow. If you live in South Dakota, contact your state legislators immediately and urge them to vote AGAINST the Interstate Compact. There are at least 11 states with current pending legislation on the Interstate Compact. If you live in any of them, contact your state legislators as well as your state medical societies TOMORROW, urging them to follow the great state of Missouri in just saying NO to the Interstate Compact. These states are: Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, Utah, and Wyoming.

For all who live in those states, stop this Compact now. Introduce your legislators, especially the “conservative” ones, to the American Legislative Exchange (ALEC) resolution, which opposes the Interstate Compact. Also, introduce the state medical society resolution opposing the Interstate Compact. While your at it, introduce the resolution calling for your state medical board to withdraw from the FSMB. If all states withdraw from FSMB, it dissolves and goes away. We don’t need it. Please allow it to peacefully disappear before it does more harm to patients and physicians. This is your chance to make that happen.