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Maryland’s Compact bill (SB0446) was withdrawn for 2nd year in a row after an unfavorable Senate committee recommendation.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

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

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

OCC isn’t worth a second of my time

Guest Post from Gina Reghetti, DO

Osteopathic Continuing Certification, (OCC) isn’t worth a second of my time to even begin to explain how I feel about it.

Everyone knows it is total non-sense mandated upon the Osteopathic Doctors for no other reason then to line the pockets of all of those who push the unproven, non-scientific, not about patient-doctor medical care, socialistic agenda!

I am totally insulted that the American Osteopathic Association, (AOA) would support something so against the Osteopaths’ way of medical practice, and treat grown doctors as if we are all incompetent to know what we should learn.

The AOA is totally on the wrong track! I believe that it has been hijacked by non-American agendas. Continue reading

Poll: How Much Time, Money Do You Spend on MOC?

Via Medical Economics:

A new study has set out to quantify the time and cost many internists and internal medicine (IM) subspecialists will spend to meet the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements. Over the course of 10 years, a 35% increase in fees and 26% increase in hours spent was found.

The study also found when the dollar value of physician time is added to MOC fees, internists and IM subspecialists will spend $23,607.

ABIM President Richard Baron, MD, disputed the study’s assumption that continuing medical education (CME) credits will only amount to 25% of the requirements. Baron said that CME could easily satisfy 100%, not 25%, of the requirements.

Medical Economics asks: Do these numbers accurately reflect an increase in the time and money you expect to spend on MOC over the next 10 years?

Give YOUR feedback in short poll at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/849196