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

Washington State Passes Bill Outlawing MOC for Licensure

Friend of IP4PI, Ken Lee, MD writes in:

There is some good news from WA state. The Legislature just passed with NO opposition in either house HB 2257 that outlaws MOC for MD /DO licensure. It is veto proof. It sits on the Governor’s desk and in my state of WA if he does not sign it in a few days it becomes law automatically. Click here for the bill. The next step would be to do the same for insurance payments, hospital privileges. Several years ago I had my state medical association adopt my resolution to ban MOC for MD licensure; the state medical licensing body agreed to this idea but it was never made into law until now.  Fight on ! The impossible only seems that way.

Free Advertising for ACCME Masquerading as Article in NEJM

Via Paul Kempen, MD, PhD:

Everyone should review this free article in NEJM from the CEO of the ACCME. Clearly  profit oriented propaganda for ACCME and MOC! I encourage EVERYONE to make a comment on this article! My comment is as follows-hopefully will be published!

See: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1515202

CLICK HERE to view the ACCME 990 form.

Paul

This article is concerning. It is free advertisement for the ACCME (a $12 million gross receipts a year “business”) as well as the increasingly suspicious ABMS MOC industry (earning over $400 million cumulatively each year) . The most recent IRS 990 form from 2014  lists the CEO salary at over $450K annually-whereby Graham McMahon is also listed as “principal officer” in 2014, yet without indication that any money was paid. This is 2016, He is CEO. Anyone reading this article MUST recognize it as a free advertisement for corporate products. While such “public service” to physicians is given 501-c tax free status, we must all recognize that physicians are forced to buy these products. True competition does not exist with such 501-c corporate monopolies! These monopolies are historic legacies and deserve serious consideration in this millennium, even though the AMA support reached back 100 years!

It is time to review the many corporate monopolies extorting payments from physicians without FREE choice! YES,  changes to post graduate education must ELIMINATE extortion of physicians to learn from corporate products. Non-profits must start offering FREE service or lose exempt status!!!

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

The Wolves Are Leading the Sheep

Medical records were created by doctors for the use of themselves and their associates and their consultants…..AND FOR NO OTHER REASON

The purpose of medical records is to maintain quality health care for the benefit of the patient, to provide a doctor personal recall, and to simplify the sharing of information between the patient’s various doctors.

Sharing medical records with attorneys, government officials, and insurance companies, if tested, is probably illegal under the rules of medical privacy.

Many years ago, I proposed that doctors stop treating attorneys. I suggested that the medical malpractice problem would be rapidly solved if we did so.

Maybe if we stopped sending in all of these medical records, we could do away with the royal mess that has been created.

ICD-10 joins MOC and MOL as another nail in the coffin of medicine.

Unfortunately, with the apathy that exists, the wolves will continue to lead the sheep to the slaughterhouse.

Robert S Maurer, D.O., Edison, NJ

Viewpoint of Abandoning MOC Deserves Discussion & Publication

Paul Kempen, MD, PhD writes Howard Bauchner, Editor-in-Chief JAMA

Dear Dr Bauchner,

While you have taken great care to include various viewpoints on ways to perform MOC, you have never allowed a viewpoint that argues for abandoning MOC entirely. Instead, you use Tierstein and Topol’s work as an “opposing view” on MOC when, in fact, it is another permutation of the same concept-only industrial competition has invited this view. Therefore, I respectfully ask you to consider publishing a perspective piece (“viewpoint”) that makes a case for abandoning the “MOC” program entirely in lieu of a more conventional CME model. I would also emphasize the difference Between MOC and CME is that CME is self-directed and MOC is centrally-directed — hence, a VERY different concept that has large patient care ramifications (and not to mention the recently documented by the very salesmen of this product (ABIM/ABMS, Etc) to have been a mistake). Continue reading

LEAD BY EXAMPLE, not by words or emails!

Dr. Steven Horvitz – writes in

I am getting tired of all the bitching and moaning, yet everyone still continues to bend over and get sodomized day in and day out by third parties, government regulations and even worse our own physician societies.

Words, words and more words and yet it only gets worse.

Our patients think we are crying wolf because what actions have we taken to prove we mean what we say?

If you do not act, just forget about it and be assimilated.

Possible actions:

1- Opt out of all insurers. Don’t play their game.

2- Resign from the physician societies that have been screwing you.

3- Get a position in the societies and change them.

4- Start our own physician organizations and bring other docs fed up with the system over to ours. Strength in numbers only if walking the walk!!

5- Retire. I hear WalMart is hiring greeters again.

6- Run for political office and then DO NOT get altered by the system. Politicians think they are the system. Unless we fight back they will continue to think that way.

7- Treat every one of your patients like they were your family and get their support for any and all of the above that you have changed.

Other than that keep just sending emails and keep digging your own grave.

Nobody likes complainers. Our patients will not follow complainers, but they will follow and support leaders.

LEAD BY EXAMPLE, not by words or emails!

Steven Horvitz DO