Marshall on Oncology Taking the Boards: A Frisking, Then a Mugging

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/822051


This is good listening from a ABIM SUPPORTER now railing the MOC process!

ANTI MOC petition at 5700 signatures and growing!

If you have not signed THIS petition against MOC, please do so and share this link with your friends! Already over 5700 signatures!
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/recallmoc

AAPS MOC Update from March 25, 2014

Anyone interested in an update on the ABIM's extortion Ponzi scheme known as MOC can review the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons MOC Update at: 

http://youtu.be/0zmAvdhnaxM

or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zmAvdhnaxM&amp...

or this  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zmAvdhnaxM

So many roads to Rome!

OPEN letter to ABIM's CEO Dr Baron to openly Debate MOC: Anytime anywhere!

http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/moc-changes-aim-lessen-burden-physicians-debate-continues?page=0,5

MOC changes aim to lessen burden on physicians, but debate continues

Publish date: MAR 24, 2014

^Print

By: Beth Thomas Hertz

AAFP: Maximize quality, minimize burden

Mindi K. McKenna, PhD, MBA, director of the continuing medical education division of the American Academy of Family Physicians, agrees with Puffer that family medicine has already made many improvements over the years that some other specialties are just now making.

“For instance, tightening up the frequency in which practice assessment and performance improvement kinds of endeavors are undertaken and reported, having a secure exam, having that kind of ongoing approach to maintaining your competency and effectiveness,” she says.

She says a lot of thought went into the nuances of the details of the revisions. “ABMS’ communications indicated that they were working really hard to find that balance of enough stability and consistency over time that it doesn’t put an undue administrative burden or cost on physicians,” she says. “We provided comments and encouraged ABMS to continue to be cognizant of trying to find ways to maximize the value for patient care to ensure that patients are getting the best possible care while minimizing the burden on physicians.”

Dissenters' view

Despite the optimism expressed by these leaders, some physicians say the latest changes do not address the real problem. “The fact that they are calling these ‘new rules’ is somewhat preposterous considering how long this has all been in effect,” says Ron Benbassat, MD, who has been in practice in California for 20 years and is certified and recertified by ABIM. He is a leader in the organization Change Board Recertification.

 “All board certificates must be converted to lifetime status. Only then will MOC be voluntary,” Benbassat says. “We already engage in lifelong learning through CME requirements to keep our licenses. MOC is nothing more than a money-making scheme by the boards.”

The combined revenue of all the boards in the United States is more than $350 million, Benbassat says. “Who benefits from these tests? I would argue that it is the 450 board members, not the 800,000 private physicians in the United States,” he says.

Benbassat also objects to the boards’ statements that they accepted comments online during the revision period. Several opponents of MOC provided Medical Economics with e-mails they received stating that their comments were not being posted because they did not meet the criteria set by the moderator. “Many people tried to submit statistics and information about MOC and they were rejected,” Benbassat says.

Baron readily acknowledges that some dissenters’ comments were not allowed on the ABIM forum. “It’s not an open forum. It’s a moderated forum, and it is moderated according to principles that are posted on the site,” he says. “We welcome input on the program, but if people are going to take a subject area and post comments that say there shouldn’t be any program, people will not bother to read the comments or engage in the conversation.”

“When people say all we care about is money and that the program should be done away with, we simply don’t regard that as a comment that is engaged with how to make MOC better. We know there are people think there should not be MOC and they have lots of places on the Internet where they make that point. We are trying to manage a civil discourse on a subject on which there is a range of opinion,” he says.

He points out that many comments critical of MOC were allowed past the moderator.  “It is one thing to offer specific criticisms of the program, but another to say there shouldn’t be a program and we don’t see the role of this conversation to be to give a platform to that,” Baron says.

·          

COMMENTS:

	PAULMKEMPEN I continue to be astounded that the ABIM refuses to openly debate the topic in an open forum. The Benjamin Rush Society invited the ABIM and ABMS to debate MOC in their home town of Philadelphia last April-they failed to come (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AetMD0OYVkY). The ABIM does NOT want to debate the issues openly in a neutral forum because the whole extortion process is unwanted by physicians in General, and it provides no index of quality. The ABIM and ABMS are trying to introduce these changes under the radar through the gradual program of lobby congress and hide from Open discussion. MOC is simply a money making extortion program self-serving to the certification industry. The ABIM itself concluded as early as 1986 and themselves published in 2000 the fact that voluntary MOC would not be possible (ANN INT MED 2000; 133:202-08 . THAT is why they imposed it with artificially restricting the certification to 10 then 8 and now to Continuous subscriptions to MOC to maintain a certificate that they themselves deem to be "VOLUNTARY". I hereby OPENLY invite the ABIM to debate ME and my colleagues in any open format before practicing physicians any time and any place. I would invite Medical Economics to sponsor such a debate and poll the general physician population in attendance to finally clarify openly the disgraceful and unethical extortion of physicians for corporate executive's gains. The fact that Dr Baron and the ABIM actively excluded comments to their website that they do NOT want to hear is testimonial to these facts stated clearly above-they only hear what they want to hear and I quote: "Baron readily acknowledges that some dissenters’ comments were not allowed on the ABIM forum. “It’s not an open forum. It’s a moderated forum, and it is moderated according to principles that are posted on the site,” he says. “We welcome input on the program, but if people are going to take a subject area and post comments that say there shouldn’t be any program, people will not bother to read the comments or engage in the conversation.” “When people say all we care about is money and that the program should be done away with, we simply don’t regard that as a comment that is engaged with how to make MOC better. We know there are people think there should not be MOC and they have lots of places on the Internet where they make that point. We are trying to manage a civil discourse on a subject on which there is a range of opinion,” he says. He points out that many comments critical of MOC were allowed past the moderator. “It is one thing to offer specific criticisms of the program, but another to say there shouldn’t be a program and we don’t see the role of this conversation to be to give a platform to that,” Baron says." Mar 24, 2014	·         edit ·         reply
	Dr. Jon Schneider I do not mind having my name used. I very much appreciated this article in that the MOC needs significant changes. I think the idea of alternatives to going to a testing center are essential to this process. I feel strongly, too, that the MOC has to be more flexible about refunding the high cost of testing when people such as myself are dying of cancer and are no longer able to sit through a five hour test. I reluctantly signed up for the MOC in 2011 and clearly informed them of my concerns about my cancer progressing. This year my concerns became a reality. I suggested alternative testing or a refund several times with the repeated response that it is a "firm policy to NOT refund fees." It became apparent that the Board was more concerned with the money than my well being. I would appreciate any advice in regard to this issue.  Mar 24, 2014	·         repl

- See more at: http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/moc-changes-aim-lessen-burden-physicians-debate-continues?page=0,5#sthash.zzWQewtE.dpuf

Sign this petition to end MOC

Go to :
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/recallmoc\
sign and comment. this is self explanatory!

ASA rejects open discussion of recertification at the annual meeting 3 years in a row!

Sent this to ASA leaders in response to the refusal to even discuss Recertification among the membership-no surprise there!
As you both have probably noticed, the open pro-con discussion on MOC proposed for this year and to which you wer agreed to participate, has now for the third year been disallowed by the ASA leadership. I am wondering very loudly WHY? If the AMA was openly discussing this matter in Chicago this past summer and formulating resolutions regarding this matter, discontent is mounting in the media and the NEJM's poll in 2010 already demonstrated strong opposition-just why should the ASA (which was forced down this road by the ABMS and ABIM) is so reluctant to talk in open session among the membership?

Thoughts?

Paul
Clinical decisions. American Board of Internal Medicine maintenance of certification program--polling results.
Kritek PA, Drazen JM.
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 15;362(15):e54. doi: 10.1056/NEJMclde1003227. No abstract available.
PMID: 20393173 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article
Related citations
Select item 20220192
7.
Clinical decisions. American Board of Internal Medicine maintenance of certification program.
Levinson W, King TE Jr, Goldman L, Goroll AH, Kessler B.
N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 11;362(10):948-52. doi: 10.1056/NEJMclde0911205. No abstract available.
PMID: 20220192 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article
Related citations

Thank you for your interest in the ASA Annual Meeting, October 11-15, 2014 in New Orleans, LA. The review process has been completed and we regret to inform you that your Point-Counterpoint entitled Does Board Recertification Do More Harm Than Good? was not accepted.

ASA received many high quality submissions, but given the limitations of time and space, regrettably not all can be accepted.

Thank you very much for submitting your Point-Counterpoint. We hope that you will consider the ASA Annual Meeting as an appropriate forum for future presentations.

Webinar Update on the ANTI-MOC movement!

I would like to point out there will be a Webinar on March 23, 2014 and the particulars are viewable at:
http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/event/webinar_moc_update
1.5 CME credits are available and NO MOC Points!