Anti-MOC Victories at Michigan State Medical Society House of Delegates

Friend of IP4PI Dr. Meg Edison writes in:

Michigan State Medical Society House of Delegates was last weekend, Martin Dubravec and I ran around like crazy, testifying in support of 4 anti-MOC resolutions and against a resolution to join the FSMB Compact. The outcome was very successful:

  1. The delegates reaffirmed strong opposition to the FSMB Compact (making me very happy, since it was my resolution from 2 years ago that we oppose the compact).
  2. We passed a resolution to engage legal counsel to investigate anti-trust violations against ABMS/insurers/hospitals in Michigan.
  3. We passed a resolution calling for an end to the direct-to-consumer advertising of the ABMS MOC product.
  4. We passed a resolution calling for public access to initial board certification status on ABMS websites.
  5. A resolution asking the AMA to amend their MOC policy to require informed consent from patients before conscripting them into ABMS MOC QI projects was referred to the board for more study, disappointing…but not surprising given how many academics are delegates. Ken Fisher was on the committee that heard this, he fought like mad and got it approved…but the delegates extracted it and referred it to the board on the house floor. Still, the conversation on the ethics of MOC & research was started.

I’ve attached the resolutions (see links embedded in list above) for your future reference if you’d like to share and pass similar resolutions in your state medical societies. I want to point out, it is a small handful of us (me, Martin Dubravec, Ken Fisher). There were no other docs testifying. We don’t need an army to make change…just a few can do this. Yes, it’s a pain to give up a few hours on Saturday, these meetings are confusing and intimidating, but find a friend, become delegates and make this happen.
-Meg

I’ll add a 6th victory that came from years of getting the right people involved in organized medicine and our House of Delegates…

6.) On the same page as the “Oppose IMLC” resolution attached below, the resolution 24-17 to “study single payer” was “amended” to remove all language on “single payer” and approved with broad language to study all alternative payment models…which includes DPC and other free market innovations. Just 3 years ago, this same body voted to approve single payer…we’ve come a long way.

Advertisements

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

Educating Legislators about Dangers of Interstate Medical Licensure Compact

Is your state considering entering the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact?  Educate your legislators about why this is a bad idea. Below is a sample letter you can use to assist your outreach efforts.  Even if your state isn’t yet a target start educating your legislators and colleagues today!

Dear Members of the Colorado House of Representatives,

Thank you for your dedicated service to the citizens of Colorado.

We are writing to voice concerns about HB 16-1047 which, if passed, will sign Colorado on to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact. The Interstate Medical Licensure Compact “may seem like a positive step” at first glance, warns CATO adjunct scholar Shirley Svorny, PhD.  She continues, “[t]he compact is being promoted, disingenuously, as addressing license portability and access to interstate telemedicine…. Adding the Compact Commission creates another layer of bureaucracy and costs.”

States that are closely looking at the Compact are increasingly rejecting it and exploring other state-controlled policy options to better accomplish the goal of license portability. Continue reading

Maryland Rejects Interstate Medical Licensure Compact … Again

Maryland’s Compact bill (SB0446) was withdrawn for 2nd year in a row after an unfavorable Senate committee recommendation. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=02&id=sb0446&tab=subject3&ys=2016RS

The Maryland State Medical Society testified that they are concerned about disciplinary provisions in compact. Since the Compact can’t be amended the society suggests fixing reciprocity problem at the state level. There are two bills pending that address license portability on a state level in lieu of joining the Compact: SB 1020 & HB 998.

The Maryland Medical Board testified against compact. There are too many details yet to be worked out. “We are worried about the bureaucracy.” The board also expressed concerns about the “extensive” disciplinary threats. “Fees could become quite excessive.” We are in wait and see mode. Physicians could get a license through the Compact without meeting Maryland’s licensing criteria. The board supports state-based reciprocity bills outside of the Compact.
http://mgahouse.maryland.gov/mga/play/d0306176-a3eb-4e70-bbeb-0c81c918dcca/?catalog/03e481c7-8a42-4438-a7da-93ff74bdaa4c&playfrom=1075000

For more on what’s being said about the Compact in other states see: https://goo.gl/obwZe3

Total betrayal by AOA of ALL its members.

Your AOA dues are hard at work promoting the Interstate Medical License Compact.  This will mean mandatory certification for all new graduates before obtaining a license.  And the claim that OCC isn’t required for licensure through the Compact is pure smokescreen.  Does the AOA underestimate the intelligence of its members? Or perhaps AOA staff overestimates their own?

Is OCC required for licensure through the Compact?  “The answer to this question is ‘no,'” states the Commission. Yet a few sentences later they explain, “a physician must demonstrate current certification to be eligible for licensure via the Compact.”

Except for “grandfathers,” osteopathic physicians must pay in time and dollars for OCC compliance if they want to maintain their certification. OCC IS required for Compact participation.  Q.E.D. Continue reading