<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Maintenance of Certification &#8211; Policy &amp; Medicine</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.policymed.com/category/maintenance-of-certification/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.policymed.com</link>
	<description>Legal, Regulatory, and Compliance Issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Dec 2024 04:14:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	

 
	<item>
		<title>This Week in Policy and Medicine, December 14, 2024</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/this-week-in-policy-and-medicine-december-14-2024.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/this-week-in-policy-and-medicine-december-14-2024.html#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Dec 2024 09:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[CME Grant Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Integrity Agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drug Shortages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Letters from Grassley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Physician Payment Sunshine Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Continuing medical education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug promotion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDA oversight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health misinformation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[healthcare policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal confrontations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceutical industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory compliance]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.policymed.com/?p=17441</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1165" height="191" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024.jpg 1165w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024-300x49.jpg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024-1024x168.jpg 1024w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024-768x126.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1165px) 100vw, 1165px" /></div>This week on the Policy and Medicine Podcast, we unpack a range of timely and impactful stories that highlight critical changes and discussions in healthcare policy and regulation. Available on Spotify and other podcast platforms, tune in to hear our expert analysis and insights. Here’s a snapshot of the stories covered in this episode: Hospital [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1165" height="191" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024.jpg 1165w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024-300x49.jpg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024-1024x168.jpg 1024w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/This-week-in-Policy-and-Medicine-12-14-2024-768x126.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1165px) 100vw, 1165px" /></div><p>This week on the <strong><a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/7aP8JQGefgLIyt6xXeT3TZ">Policy and Medicine Podcast</a></strong>, we unpack a range of timely and impactful stories that highlight critical changes and discussions in healthcare policy and regulation. Available on Spotify and other podcast platforms, tune in to hear our expert analysis and insights. Here’s a snapshot of the stories covered in this episode:</p>
<p><strong>Hospital Price Transparency Compliance Drops to 38%</strong> A recent analysis shows a significant drop in hospital compliance with price transparency regulations, now at just 38%. This decline raises concerns about consumer access to price information and the potential impact on healthcare costs. Continued enforcement and increased penalties are being discussed as potential solutions to ensure hospitals meet transparency requirements. <a href="https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/hospital-price-transparency-compliance-drops-38.html">Read more</a></p>
<p><strong>Generic Drugmakers Reach $50 Million in Antitrust Settlements</strong> In a major development, generic drug manufacturers have agreed to nearly $50 million in settlements related to antitrust violations in multidistrict litigation. This settlement addresses the alleged price-fixing schemes that affected the cost of several widely used medications, highlighting ongoing issues within the pharmaceutical industry. <a href="https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/generic-drugmakers-reach-nearly-50-million-in-antitrust-settlements-in-multidistrict-litigation.html">Read more</a></p>
<p><strong>OPDP Issues Untitled Letter to Merz Pharmaceuticals</strong> The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) has issued an untitled letter to Merz Pharmaceuticals concerning a recent social media post that allegedly promotes an approved drug in a misleading manner. This action underscores the FDA&#8217;s continued focus on digital marketing practices and the importance of compliant promotional communications. <a href="https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/opdp-sends-untitled-letter-to-merz-over-social-media-post.html">Read more</a></p>
<p><strong>Stakeholders Provide Feedback on FDA Misinformation Draft Guidance</strong> The FDA&#8217;s recent draft guidance on health misinformation has received extensive feedback from various stakeholders. Industry leaders, healthcare professionals, and advocacy groups are contributing insights, aiming to shape a balanced approach that addresses misinformation without stifling scientific discourse. <a href="https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/stakeholders-provide-feedback-on-fda-misinformation-draft-guidance.html">Read more</a></p>
<p><strong>Steward Health CEO Held in Contempt of Congress</strong> In an unprecedented move, the CEO of Steward Health has been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify regarding allegations of misconduct. This legal confrontation highlights the growing tensions between healthcare executives and regulatory authorities. <a href="https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/steward-health-ceo-held-in-contempt-of-congress-for-refusal-to-testify.html">Read more</a></p>
<p><strong>Necessary Disruption 2.0: A Continuing Education Call to Action</strong> The &#8220;Necessary Disruption 2.0&#8221; initiative calls for transformative changes in continuing medical education (CME). It aims to better align educational practices with current healthcare challenges, emphasizing innovative learning methods and increased accountability in CME programs. <a href="https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/necessary-disruption-2-0-a-continuing-education-call-to-action.html">Read more</a></p>
<p>For more details on these topics, visit <a href="https://www.policymed.com">PolicyMed.com</a>. Tune into our <strong><a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/7aP8JQGefgLIyt6xXeT3TZ">This Week in Policy and Medicine Podcast on Spotify</a></strong> and other podcast platforms to hear more in-depth discussions on these crucial issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2024/12/this-week-in-policy-and-medicine-december-14-2024.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>American Board of Surgery Announces Changes to MOC Credit Reporting</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2023/04/american-board-of-surgery-announces-changes-to-moc-credit-reporting.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2023/04/american-board-of-surgery-announces-changes-to-moc-credit-reporting.html#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2023 08:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[CME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.policymed.com/?p=15947</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50.jpg 1200w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50-450x300.jpg 450w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></div>The American Board of Surgery recently announced changes to the way diplomates receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC, or Continuous Certification/CC) credit when participating in continuing medical education (CME) activities. As of July 1, 2023, ABS will discontinue self-reporting of credits by diplomates. This means that as of July 1, 2023, if an ABS surgeon wants [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50.jpg 1200w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stencil.default-50-450x300.jpg 450w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></div><p>The American Board of Surgery <a href="https://www.absurgery.org/default.jsp?news_abscme0223">recently announced changes</a> to the way diplomates receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC, or Continuous Certification/CC) credit when participating in continuing medical education (CME) activities. As of July 1, 2023, ABS will discontinue self-reporting of credits by diplomates.</p>
<p>This means that as of July 1, 2023, if an ABS surgeon wants to have CME credit count towards their ABS CC requirements, the request will need to come through the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) Program Activity and Reporting System (PARS).</p>
<p>When ABS joined the CME for MOC Collaboration in 2021, all accredited providers became able to register their CME activities for ABS CC and report surgeon learners’ credit in PARS. The Collaboration was intended to simplify the reporting of CME credits, allow surgeons more time to focus on their own professional development and less time managing their credits and requirements, and streamline the search for relevant CME activities. Since that time, more than 150 accredited providers have registered their activities for ABS.</p>
<p>While there is no requirement for accredited providers to report credit for any certifying board, participating in the CME for MOC Collaboration allows accreditors an opportunity to add value to the CME programs and relieve physicians of their reporting burdens.</p>
<p>This change is also expected to make CC easier for diplomates, as ABS accepts any accredited CME relevant to surgery for CC requirements and many providers will have CME activities that can count. This also means that if an activity is not already registered through PARS, an ABS surgeon can request it be registered through PARS and the credit will be reported that way. Once the credit is reported in PARS, it will be made available to ABS and will show up in the surgeon’s ABS profile.</p>
<p>In the meantime, if you are an ABS Diplomate and you do not see a previously completed CME activity in your ABS CME repository, you can either manually upload that information <u>prior to July 1, 2023</u>, <strong><u>or</u></strong> you can contact the CME provider to see if they are able to send that information on your behalf to the ABS. The ability to manually upload information will cease on July 1, 2023.</p>
<p>When registering for a CME activity with an accredited CME provider in the future, ABS diplomates will need to provide the following information so that the CME provider can appropriately report CME credit: first and last name, date of birth (month and year) and permission to share the information with ACCME and ABS. CME providers are asked to report all CME credits to ACCME within 30 days of completion of the activity.</p>
<p><strong>Related ACS <em>My</em>CME Changes</strong></p>
<p>ABS also noted that starting in April 2023, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) will launch an updated process to submit CME credit from the ACS <em>My</em>CME system to ABS, in alignment with the new ABS system. ACS members will need to log into their ACS <em>My</em>CME account, provide their ABS ID, select the date range for CME credit, and allow the data transfer to take place.</p>
<p><strong>Resources for Accredited Providers</strong></p>
<p>ACCME continues to provide a multitude of resources to help accredited providers with reporting MOC/CC credit, including the <a href="https://accme.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/840_cme_for_moc_program_guide.pdf">CME for MOC Program Guide</a>, <a href="https://accme.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/838_CME%20for%20MOC%20-%20Beginners%20Guide.pdf">the CME for MOC Beginner’s Guide</a>, the <a href="https://www.accme.org/publications/cme-for-moc-planning-guide">CME for MOC Planning Worksheet</a>, a <a href="https://www.accme.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/842_20211116_Activity%20Registration%20Tutorial.pdf">tutorial on how to register CME activities for MOC credit</a>, and a <a href="https://www.accme.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/836_20220610_Learner%20Reporting%20Tutorial.pdf">tutorial showing how to submit learner data for MOC in PARS</a>.</p>
<p>ACCME also notes that there are options for accredited providers when it comes to registering activities and reporting learners’ credit, depending on the volume of activities and learners. Some of the options include entering the information into PARS manually, uploading the information using an Excel spreadsheet, or using a web services connection to PARS to report the data directly from the LMS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2023/04/american-board-of-surgery-announces-changes-to-moc-credit-reporting.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ABMS Draft Standards for Continuing Certification Call for Comments</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2021/04/abms-draft-standards-for-continuing-medical-education-call-for-comments.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2021/04/abms-draft-standards-for-continuing-medical-education-call-for-comments.html#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:37:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[CME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.policymed.com/?p=14307</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="200" height="200" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABMS.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABMS.png 200w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABMS-150x150.png 150w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABMS-100x100.png 100w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 200px) 100vw, 200px" /></div>On April 20, 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) released their “Draft Standards for Continuing Certification – Call for Comments.” Major changes include reducing the board recertification period from 10 years to no more than five years and diminishing the emphasis on the practice exam. In addition to releasing the draft standards, ABMS [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="200" height="200" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABMS.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABMS.png 200w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABMS-150x150.png 150w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABMS-100x100.png 100w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 200px) 100vw, 200px" /></div><p>On April 20, 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) released their “<a href="https://www.abms.org/news-events/draft-standards-for-continuing-certification-call-for-comments/">Draft Standards for Continuing Certification – Call for Comments</a>.” Major changes include reducing the board recertification period from 10 years to no more than five years and diminishing the emphasis on the practice exam. In addition to releasing the draft standards, ABMS is seeking input and feedback from stakeholders through Thursday, July 8, 2021, at 11:59 PM CST.</p>
<p>ABMS is an umbrella organization that represents 24 specialty boards across the country and establishes the standards its 24 Member Boards use to develop and implement educational and assessment programs used to certify diplomate specialists. The draft standards proposed by ABMS reflect “foundational changes” to the way in which ABMS and Member Boards deliver on their mission and bring value to the profession and public.</p>
<p>Some of the proposed “foundational changes” to the board certification processes and programs are detailed below.</p>
<p><strong>Certification Status</strong></p>
<p>The proposed changes revise board certification cycles from the current ten-year cycle to a cycle not to exceed five year for diplomates, physicians who are board certified by one or more of the ABMS member boards. This change also requires member boards to determine at intervals no longer than five years whether a physician is maintaining his or her board certification.</p>
<p><strong>Holders of Multiple Certificates</strong></p>
<p>The proposed changes make it easier for diplomates to hold multiple board certifications through streamlined requirements, which will minimize duplication of effort for diplomates who hold multiple certificates. The changes also require Member Boards to work with ABMS when it takes actions on the certification status of a diplomate who holds multiple certificates and notify other Member Boards of the action taken.</p>
<p><strong>Lifelong Learning</strong></p>
<p>ABMS seems to be embracing lifelong learning and validated assessments of learning. In addition to keeping the practice exam as an option for diplomates to maintain certification, ABMS is advocating for test questions to be dispersed throughout the learning activities over time.</p>
<p>In addition, ABMS is focused on practice-specific conduct that is clinically relevant to the diplomates and in programs that assess knowledge and support learning while helping physicians stay current in their area of practice.</p>
<p><strong>Use of Assessment Results in Determining Certification Decisions</strong></p>
<p>ABMS notes that continuing certification assessments of Member Boards must meet appropriate psychometric standards to support making defensible, summative decisions via test questions that make sense and resonate with a diplomate’s practice. Additionally, assessments include diplomate feedback strategies and support learning opportunities to address identified deficits, including identifying areas of strengths and weakness with links to resources for learning and improvement (where possible. Boards should collaborate with educational providers to address major public health priorities and frequently occurring deficits within and across specialties.</p>
<p><strong>Advancing the Review of Professional Standing</strong></p>
<p>Under the proposed changes, Member Boards must solicit and review information regarding licensure in every state which the diplomate holds a medical license. The primary source verification of licensure must occur annually and Member Boards must require that diplomates report any action taken against them and any events that affect professional standing within a defined period.</p>
<p>Member Boards may also choose other methods of evaluation, including but not limited to, peer review, case logs, restrictions on prescribing privileges for controlled substances, suspension (or other actions by CMS and other government agencies), indictment, conviction, or guilty pleas for felonies.</p>
<p>Professionalism policies must be readily accessible for physicians and their practices.</p>
<p><strong>Advancing Engagement in Improving Health and Healthcare</strong></p>
<p>ABMS advocates for Member Boards working in collaboration to adopt an overall collaborative quality agenda for improving care and provide a set of high-value priorities and improvement targets.  their requirements with physicians’ daily practices and required activities mandated by their hospitals, health systems, payers, and other groups so that physicians can apply their improvement activities to multiple purposes.</p>
<p>Boards should also align quality and safety priorities with CPD programs and longitudinal assessment programs as well as engage diplomates in activities that align with their local practice setting and address disparities in patient care.</p>
<p><strong>Comment Submission</strong></p>
<p>To review and comment on the draft standards, click <a href="https://www.abms.org/news-events/draft-standards-for-continuing-certification-call-for-comments/">here</a>. Comments can be submitted <a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ABMSStandards">here</a> no later than 11:59 PM CST on July 8, 2021.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2021/04/abms-draft-standards-for-continuing-medical-education-call-for-comments.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ABIM Extends Maintenance of Certification Requirement Deadlines Through 2022</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2021/04/abim-extends-maintenance-of-certification-requirement-deadlines-through-2022.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2021/04/abim-extends-maintenance-of-certification-requirement-deadlines-through-2022.html#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:05:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.policymed.com/?p=14297</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28.jpg 1200w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28-450x300.jpg 450w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></div>The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) recently announced on its blog that it would extend all maintenance of certification (MOC) requirement deadlines through December 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ABIM notes that this means no one will lose their certification if they are not able to complete a MOC requirement this year. [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28.jpg 1200w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/stencil.default-28-450x300.jpg 450w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></div><p>The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) recently <a href="https://blog.abim.org/abim-to-extend-all-moc-requirement-deadlines-through-2022/">announced on its blog</a> that it would extend all maintenance of certification (MOC) requirement deadlines through December 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>ABIM notes that this means no one will lose their certification if they are not able to complete a MOC requirement this year. However, ABIM also recognized that not everyone has been impacted in the same way by COVID-19 and therefore, will continue to offer all exams in 2021 as scheduled.</p>
<p>&#8220;We know internists and internal medicine subspecialists have been on the front lines meeting the country’s needs, many experiencing the tragedy of COVID in deeply personal ways,&#8221; the ABIM board of directors wrote. &#8220;The ABIM board is a diverse set of clinicians practicing in a variety of settings, and just like you, has experienced directly the unprecedented clinical demands posed by the devastating COVID-19 pandemic.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment</strong></p>
<p>In January 2022, ABIM will offer a <a href="https://www.abim.org/maintenance-of-certification/assessment-information/assessment-options/longitudinal-knowledge-assessment/">longitudinal knowledge assessment</a> (LKA). Physicians who opt to delay their 2021 assessment will be able to enroll in the longitudinal assessment when it becomes available (pending availability) or they can continue to take the traditional 10-year MOC examination.</p>
<p>The LKA is a five-year cycle in which physicians answer questions on an ongoing basis and receive feedback along the way as to how they are performing. Under the LKA, participants will have four minutes per question (plus a bank of 30 extra minutes to use annually) and can answer the questions any time using any resources used in practice (except another person).</p>
<p>Under the LKA, participants are offered 120 questions per year delivered on a quarterly basis (600 total) and are permitted to skip a total of 100 questions over the five-year period. Immediate feedback is given (in addition to rationales and references) and feedback relative to standard will be provided with a final score at the conclusion of the five-year cycle. Successfully meeting the performance standard at the close of the five-year period means you can continue with the LKA. If you do not meet the performance standard, you do not lose your certification but you must pass the traditional 10-year MOC exam the following year to remain certified.</p>
<p><strong>Cardiologists</strong></p>
<p>Additionally, the ABIM/ACC Collaborative Maintenance Pathway is an option for physicians in certain cardiology disciplines. In addition to the Collaborative Maintenance Pathway, general cardiologists and cardiology subspecialists have two other assessment options to choose from: (1) the traditional, 10-year MOC exam in Cardiovascular Disease, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology, Interventional Cardiology and Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology or (2) the Knowledge Check-In, available in 2021 in several cardiology subspecialties.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2021/04/abim-extends-maintenance-of-certification-requirement-deadlines-through-2022.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ABMS Plans to Implement Recommendations from Independent Commission</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2019/03/abms-plans-to-implement-recommendations-from-independent-commission.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2019/03/abms-plans-to-implement-recommendations-from-independent-commission.html#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:24:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.policymed.com/?p=12081</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="400" height="400" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400.jpeg 400w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400-300x300.jpeg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400-100x100.jpeg 100w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px" /></div>The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) Board of Directors (BOD) recently announced its plans to address the recommendations shared in the final report of the Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future Commission. The final report was presented to the ABMS BOD in February 2019 and included a set of recommendations to help continuing [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="400" height="400" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400.jpeg 400w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400-300x300.jpeg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/4Y7z9cK_400x400-100x100.jpeg 100w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px" /></div><p>The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) Board of Directors (BOD) <a href="https://www.abms.org/news-events/abms-plan-to-implement-vision-initiative-commission-recommendations/">recently announced its plans to address the recommendations</a> shared in the <a href="https://www.abms.org/media/194956/commission_final_report_20190212.pdf">final report of the Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future Commission</a>. The final report was presented to the ABMS BOD in February 2019 and included a set of recommendations to help continuing certification evolve into a meaningful and relevant program that brings value to a physician’s practice and meets the highest standard of quality patient care.</p>
<p>During its February meeting, the ABMS BOD reviewed the final report and discussed how best to address the recommendations outlined in it. For first steps, the <a href="https://www.abms.org/news-events/abms-board-of-directors-announces-plan-to-implement-recommendations-from-the-continuing-board-certification-vision-commission-final-report/">Board plans to take the following actions</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>Establish the “Achieving the Vision for Continuing Board Certification” Oversight Committee, which shall be responsible for directing the implementation of all of the recommendations. To that end, the Committee will seek input from the ABMS new Stakeholder Council and other stakeholders in the continuing certification process throughout implementation.</li>
<li>Create four task force groups that will include representatives from professional and state societies and other external stakeholders.
<ul>
<li>Remediation Pathways</li>
<li>Professionalism</li>
<li>Advancing Practice</li>
<li>Information and Data Sharing</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Establish a meeting of the ABMS/Council of Medical Specialty Societies joint Board Leadership to ensure full specialty society engagement in building the road map outlined in the Commission report. This meeting will especially focus on the role of continuing certification in advancing clinical practice.</li>
</ul>
<p>The Board will also look to get an agreement of all 24 ABMS Member Boards to commit to longitudinal or other formative assessment strategies and offer alternatives to the point-in-time, secure, examinations of knowledge, and work to develop new, integrated standards for continuing certification programs by 2020, including addressing Commission recommendations for flexibility in knowledge assessment and advancing practice, feedback to diplomates, and consistency.</p>
<p>&#8220;The ABMS Board of Directors appreciates the diligent, transparent, inclusive and thoughtful approach taken throughout the process by the Commission,&#8221; <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-board-of-medical-specialties-announces-plan-to-implement-recommendations-from-the-continuing-board-certification-vision-for-the-future-commission-300810324.html">said Barry S. Smith, MD, Chair of the ABMS BOD</a>. &#8220;As a Community, we are eager to begin implementing the Commission&#8217;s recommendations that represent the needs of all our stakeholders. We are also committed to maintaining the inclusive nature of the Commission and will work with external stakeholders as well as those within the Boards as we move forward.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;The Commission&#8217;s final report conveys that continuing certification programs should bring value and meaning to physicians in helping them with their learning and improvement needs while fulfilling the Boards&#8217; commitment to the public that physicians are maintaining their knowledge and skills and working to continuously improve their practices,&#8221; <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-board-of-medical-specialties-announces-plan-to-implement-recommendations-from-the-continuing-board-certification-vision-for-the-future-commission-300810324.html">said ABMS President and Chief Executive Officer, Richard E. Hawkins, MD</a>. &#8220;The Commission&#8217;s recommendations offer a collaborative roadmap for creating a continuing certification system that will ensure that the credential itself remains relevant and meaningful to physicians and the patients they serve well into the next decade and beyond.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2019/03/abms-plans-to-implement-recommendations-from-independent-commission.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ABIM and ACC Announce New CMP Option for Cardiologists</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2019/03/abim-and-acc-announce-new-cmp-option-for-cardiologists.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2019/03/abim-and-acc-announce-new-cmp-option-for-cardiologists.html#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.policymed.com/?p=12075</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="800" height="600" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC.jpg 800w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC-300x225.jpg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC-768x576.jpg 768w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC-86x64.jpg 86w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" /></div>As released at the American College of Cardiology’s (ACC) 68th Annual Scientific Session this week in New Orleans, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and ACC have announced a new Collaborative Maintenance Pathway (CMP) option for certified cardiologists who wish to maintain their board certification. A Cardiovascular Disease CMP that utilizes the ACC’s Adult [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="800" height="600" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC.jpg 800w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC-300x225.jpg 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC-768x576.jpg 768w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACC-86x64.jpg 86w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" /></div><p>As released at the American College of Cardiology’s (ACC) 68<sup>th</sup> Annual Scientific Session this week in New Orleans, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and ACC have <a href="http://2019.accmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ABIM-ACC-CMP-Press-Release_FINAL.pdf">announced a new Collaborative Maintenance Pathway (CMP) option</a> for certified cardiologists who wish to maintain their board certification.</p>
<p>A Cardiovascular Disease CMP that utilizes the ACC’s Adult Clinical Cardiology Self-Assessment Program (ACCSAP) for formative engagement in learnings and the demonstration of currency with an annual performance assessment will become available this year. In order to be successful in this CMP, the cardiologist will need to engage with the ACCSAP educational materials in specific content areas each year. The cardiologist will need to participate in one year’s materials in order to participate in the performance assessment later in that calendar year. A new performance assessment will be available each year, with each assessment covering roughly 20 percent of the field of cardiovascular disease. This means that over the course of five years, the breadth of general cardiology will be covered.</p>
<p>The 2019 ACCSAP performance assessment will focus on arrhythmias. Therefore, physicians planning to enter the CMP in 2019 should begin to focus their studying on the arrhythmia section of ACCSAP now, and the performance assessment on arrhythmias will be available in the fall. It is anticipated that CMPs in Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology, Interventional Cardiology and Advanced Heart Failure, and Transplant Cardiology will become available in 2020.</p>
<p>To be eligible to participate in this new option a physician must:</p>
<ul>
<li>Be currently certified by ABIM and not in an MOC exam grace period</li>
<li>Participate in ACCSAP</li>
<li>Spend time “engaging” in the topic areas covered annually by the CMP Performance Assessment, spending at least seven hours:</li>
</ul>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;">o Reading the text, watching/listening to presentations and/or completing practice questions in the Arrhythmias chapter</p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;">o Completing all 94 Arrhythmias practice questions and answering at least 70% of them correctly to align with current CME requirements</p>
<ul>
<li>Take the first Performance Assessment in fall 2019</li>
</ul>
<p>2019 is considered a “no consequences” year for this new option, which means physicians will be considered as meeting their ABIM assessment requirement as long as they have participated in both the engagement and performance components of the pathway. Beginning in 2020, a physician must engage in the learning components and pass the Performance Assessment to be considered as meeting their ABIM assessment requirement. Physicians will have two chances each year to pass the performance assessment.</p>
<p>ABIM’s traditional 10-year MOC exam and the two-year Knowledge Check-In assessment will remain available to diplomates if they choose not to participate in the CMP.</p>
<p>This announcement follows discussions that began in 2017 between ABIM and ACC in response to feedback from cardiologists who expressed interest in a way to focus their study in specific areas over the course of several years, rather than one test every decade.</p>
<p>“The new CMP leverages the respective expertise of the ACC and ABIM to create a literal ‘pathway’ that meets the ongoing learning needs of cardiologists, while also giving patients, the public and other stakeholders confidence that the care provided by their physicians is of the highest quality,” <a href="http://2019.accmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ABIM-ACC-CMP-Press-Release_FINAL.pdf">said Timothy W. Attebery</a>, DSc, MBA, FACHE, Chief Executive Officer of ACC. “We appreciate ABIM working with us on what we believe is a win-win solution for cardiologists and the patients they serve.”</p>
<p>“Through meaningful engagement with the physician community and professional societies, ABIM is proud to continue the evolution of our MOC program in a myriad of ways to better meet the needs of physicians and the patients they serve,” <a href="http://2019.accmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ABIM-ACC-CMP-Press-Release_FINAL.pdf">said Richard J. Baron</a>, MD, President and CEO of ABIM. “This new offering increases choice, flexibility and relevance for board certified cardiologists while also keeping a performance standard that gives patients confidence that their physician possesses the current medical knowledge necessary to deliver high-quality care. We appreciate ACC’s expertise and partnership throughout this journey to co-create an innovative new assessment option for cardiologists.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2019/03/abim-and-acc-announce-new-cmp-option-for-cardiologists.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Research Reveals Doctors Who Maintain ABIM Certification Are More Likely to Meet Quality Metrics</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2018/07/new-research-reveals-doctors-who-maintain-abim-certification-are-more-likely-to-meet-quality-metrics.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2018/07/new-research-reveals-doctors-who-maintain-abim-certification-are-more-likely-to-meet-quality-metrics.html#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:01:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[CME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.policymed.com/?p=10768</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="299" height="168" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/download.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" /></div>Recently it was once again confirmed that physicians who complete regular activities to update their medical knowledge through the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program perform better on Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures than those who do not. The recent analysis, as published in Annals of Internal [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="299" height="168" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/download.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" /></div><p>Recently it was <a href="http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2684481/associations-between-american-board-internal-medicine-maintenance-certification-status-performance">once again confirmed</a> that physicians who complete regular activities to update their medical knowledge through the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program perform better on Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures than those who do not.</p>
<p>The recent analysis, as <a href="http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2684481/associations-between-american-board-internal-medicine-maintenance-certification-status-performance">published in Annals of Internal Medicine</a>, highlights and <a href="http://www.abim.org/about/publications/shareables/board-certified-internists-are-positively-different.aspx">builds on prior evidence</a> that MOC is associated with better patient care and making a positive difference in the lives of patients.</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2684481/associations-between-american-board-internal-medicine-maintenance-certification-status-performance">most recent study</a>, researchers analyzed 1,260 physicians, 786 of whom maintained their certification and 474 did not, and then identified 85,931 Medicare patients to whom these physicians provided primary care. They used Medicare claims data to calculate physician performance scores based on the percentage of these patients that met a set of HEDIS performance standards for diabetes care, mammography screening and heart disease care.</p>
<p>Physicians who participated in MOC performed better in:</p>
<ul>
<li>All three diabetes measures, including A1C hemoglobin testing, LDL testing, and eye exams;</li>
<li>LDL testing for patients with coronary artery disease; and</li>
<li>Biennial mammography measures.</li>
</ul>
<p>&#8221;MOC offers a pathway for physicians to stay current in medical practice through their careers, so we were interested to see if MOC participation had any association with care delivery among mid-career physicians who had similar training and clinical cognitive ability at initial certification,&#8221; <a href="http://www.prleap.com/pr/263368/doctors-who-maintain-abim-board-certification">said lead author Bradley M. Gray, PhD, ABIM Senior Health Services Researcher</a>. &#8220;Our findings suggest that MOC is a marker of care quality even after considering physician training and ability, and MOC status is an even more reliable indicator of clinical competence than other online sources patients might review when selecting a physician.&#8221;</p>
<p>Gray <a href="https://www.healio.com/internal-medicine/practice-management/news/online/%7B834a1a4e-04fd-449d-bf0c-7d104532ef15%7D/abim-moc-linked-to-better-physician-performance-still-unimpressive-to-expert">also noted that</a>, “The value of the ABIM’s Maintenance of Certification program has been questioned by physicians who argue that additional requirements beyond initial certification add unnecessary burden to already overwhelmed physicians without benefiting patients.”</p>
<p>In addition to performing better on important metrics throughout time, physicians who maintain their certification are <a href="http://www.abim.org/news/doctors-who-pass-periodic-assessment-of-medical-knowledge-to-maintain-abim-board-certification.aspx">less likely to be involved</a> in disciplinary actions.</p>
<p>This new research seems to further cement and confirm the idea that physicians who maintain their certification and take continuing medical education (CME) courses are often those who are best equipped to handle not just the severe medical conditions, but also the routine day to day care of diseases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2018/07/new-research-reveals-doctors-who-maintain-abim-certification-are-more-likely-to-meet-quality-metrics.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-MOC Laws Picking Up Steam Across the United States</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2017/06/anti-moc-laws-picking-up-steam-across-the-united-states.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2017/06/anti-moc-laws-picking-up-steam-across-the-united-states.html#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[CME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.policymed.com/anti-moc-laws-picking-up-steam-across-the-united-states/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="800" height="600" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States.png 800w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States-300x225.png 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States-768x576.png 768w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States-86x64.png 86w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" /></div>Lawmakers across America have started to take a variety of matters into their own hands, the most recent of which is Maintenance of Certification (MOC) licensure requirements. This trend started late last year when Oklahoma became the first state to pass legislation that prohibited MOC as a condition of medical licensure and hospital admitting privileges. [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="800" height="600" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States.png 800w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States-300x225.png 300w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States-768x576.png 768w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Anti-MOC-Laws-Picking-Up-Steam-Across-the-United-States-86x64.png 86w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" /></div><p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Lawmakers across America have started to take a variety of matters into their own hands, the most recent of which is Maintenance of Certification (MOC) licensure requirements. This trend started late last year when <a href="https://www.ncnp.org/journal-of-medicine/1757-more-states-consider-outlawing-forced-maintenance-of-certification.html">Oklahoma became the first state</a> to pass legislation that prohibited MOC as a condition of medical licensure and hospital admitting privileges. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">So far seven states (Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennesse and Texas) have passed laws that prevent hospitals, licensing boards, insurance companies and health systems from requiring MOC.  Bellow is a summary of bills and laws in states taking MOC under consideration.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Alaska</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Alaska State Legislature has introduced legislation, <a href="http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?session=30&amp;bill=HB0191">HB 191 – An Act relating to the practice of medicine and osteopathy</a>, that stated, “Maintenance of Certification and osteopathic continuous certification. Nothing in this chapter may be construed to require a physician to secure a maintenance of certification as a condition of licensure, reimbursement, employment, or admitting privileges at a hospital in this state.” The legislation was referred to the Health and Social Services Committee on March 22, 2017, and no further action has been taken.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>California</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">California <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB487">Senate Bill 487 – Practice of Medicine: Hospitals</a> was introduced in February 2017, and has yet to be heard by the committee, though it was set for hearing twice (and canceled twice). The relevant portion of the legislation reads, “The regular practice of medicine in a licensed general or specialized hospital having five or more physicians and surgeons on the medical staff, which does not have rules established by the board of directors thereof of the hospital to govern the operation of the hospital, which rules include, among other provisions, all the following, constitutes unprofessional conduct: … (c) Provision that the award or maintenance of hospital or clinical privileges, or both, shall not be contingent on participation in a program for maintenance of certification.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Florida</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Florida had legislation <a href="http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/723/BillText/c1/PDF">introduced</a> in the state House of Representatives that would have prohibited that Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine and the DOH from requiring certain certifications as conditions of licensure, reimbursement, or admitting privileges. The bill, fortunately, never made it out of Committee discussions.</span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Georgia</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Georgia’s legislation that prohibits MOC from being required as a condition of licensure was <a href="http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20172018/HB/165">signed by the Governor</a> on May 8, 2017, and is effective as of July 1, 2017. The relevant language states, “maintenance of certification shall not be required as a condition of licensure to practice medicine, staff privileges, employment in certain facilities, reimbursement, or malpractice insurance coverage; to provide for definitions; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Maine</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Both houses of the Maine legislature have introduced legislation that aims to change the way physicians and surgeons are licensed. <a href="http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP0837&amp;item=1&amp;snum=128">Relevant language states</a>, “Nothing in this chapter may be construed to require an osteopathic physician or surgeon licensed under this chapter to secure a maintenance of certification as a condition of licensure, reimbursement, employment or admitting privileges at a hospital in the State.” The passed legislation is currently awaiting the governor’s signature.</span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Maryland</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Maryland legislation has been passed by both the <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&amp;tab=subject3&amp;id=hb1054&amp;stab=0%201&amp;ys=2017RS">House</a> and <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&amp;tab=subject3&amp;id=sb0989&amp;stab=01&amp;ys=2017RS">Senate</a>, and was signed by Governor Larry Hogan and will become effective on October 1, 2017. The relevant language states, “The Board may not require as a qualification to obtain a license or as a condition to renew a license certification by a nationally recognized accrediting organization that specializes in a specific area of medicine; or maintenance of certification by a nationally recognized accrediting organization that specializes in a specific area of medicine that includes continuous reexamination to measure core competencies in the practice of medicine as a requirement for maintenance of certification.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Massachusetts</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Bill <a href="https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H2446">H.2446</a> was introduced in the Massachusetts House of Representatives in January 2017, but did not make it into law. The relevant language of the legislation stated, “Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as to require a physician to secure a Maintenance of Certification (MOC) as a condition of licensure, reimbursement, employment, or admitting privileges at a hospital in this state.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Michigan</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Michigan legislature introduced two separate bills relating to MOC, <a href="https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1j3kuuvkr0urybju40v3jdd1))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=2017-HB-4134">HB 4134</a> and <a href="https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kphu2vs45tdqwmlfjmlp5qcv))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=2017-HB-4135">HB 4135</a>. The two bills, neither of which became law, dovetailed off one another, stating, “Notwithstanding any provision of this Act to the contrary, the Department or the Board of Medicine or Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery shall not by order, rule, or other method require a physician applicant or licensee under its jurisdiction to maintain a national or regional certification that is not otherwise specifically required to maintain a national or regional certification that is not otherwise specifically required in this article before it issues a license or license renewal to that physician applicant or licensee under this article,” and “An insurer that delivers, issues for delivery, or renews in this state a health insurance policy or health maintenance that issues a health maintenance contract shall not require a condition precedent to the payment or reimbursement of a claim under the policy or contract that an allopathic or osteopathic physician maintain a national or regional certification not otherwise specifically required for licensure.”</span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Missouri </em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Missouri joins Oklahoma as one of the first in the country to enact anti-MOC legislation. In July 2016, the state enacted law that stated, “The state shall not require any form of maintenance of licensure as a condition of physician licensure including requiring any form of maintenance of licensure tied to maintenance of certification. Current requirements including continuing medical education shall suffice to demonstrate professional competency. The state shall not require any form of specialty medical board certification or any maintenance of certification to practice medicine within the state. There shall be no discrimination by the state board of registration for the healing arts or any other state agency against physicians who do not maintain specialty medical board certification including recertification.” In 2017, the <a href="http://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB529&amp;year=2017&amp;code=R">legislature introduced a bill</a> that made it so “No provision of law shall be construed as to require any form of maintenance of licensure as a condition of physician licensure, reimbursement, employment, or admitting privileges at a hospital in this state, including requiring any form of maintenance of certification. Current requirements, including continuing medical education, shall suffice to demonstrate professional competency.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>New York</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&amp;leg_video=&amp;bn=A04914&amp;term=2017&amp;Summary=Y&amp;Text=Y">New York AO4914</a> states, “It shall be an improper practice for a governing body of a hospital to refuse to act upon an application or to deny or to withhold staff membership or professional privileges of a physician solely because such physician is not board-certified. A health care plan may not refuse to approve an application from a physician to participate in the in-network portion of the health care plan&#8217;s network solely because such physician is not board-certified.” The legislation was introduced into the Assembly and referred to the health committee.</span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>North Carolina</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In Summer 2016, the North Carolina legislature presented <a href="http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/PDF/H728v5.pdf">HB 728 to the Governor</a> for signature. The Governor signed, and the law states that the North Carolina Medical Board “shall not deny a licensee’s annual registration based solely on the licensee’s failure to become board certified.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Ohio</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Patient Access Expansion Act (<a href="https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-HB-273">HB 273</a>) prohibits a physician from being required to secure MOC as a condition of obtaining licensure, reimbursement, employment, or obtaining admitting privileges or surgical privileges at a hospital or health care facility. It was introduced in the House in June 2017 and referred to the Health Committee, where it is currently sitting.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em><u>Oklahoma</u></em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In April 2016, <a href="http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1148&amp;Session=1600">SB 1148 was signed into Oklahoma law</a>. The legislation states: &#8220;Nothing in the Oklahoma Allopathic Medical and Surgical Licensure and Supervision Act shall be construed as to require a physician to secure a Maintenance of Certification (MOC) as a condition of licensure, reimbursement, employment, or admitting privileges at a hospital in this state. For the purposes of this subsection, Maintenance of Certification (MOC) shall mean a continuing education program measuring core competencies in the practice of medicine and surgery and approved by a nationally recognized accrediting organization.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Rhode Island</em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Rhode Island general assembly <a href="http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText17/HouseText17/H5671.pdf">introduced H 5671</a> in January 2017, which states in relevant part, “The state and its instrumentalities are prohibited from requiring any form of specialty medical board certification and any maintenance of certification to practice medicine within the state. Within the state, there shall be no discrimination by the board of medical licensure and discipline, or any other agency or facility which accepts state funds, against physicians who do not maintain specialty medical board certification, including re-certification.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em><u>Tennessee</u></em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">This <a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/SB0298.pdf">legislation was signed into law</a> on May 25, 2017, and states that “No facility licensed under this chapter shall deny a physician a hospital&#8217;s staff privileges based solely on the physician&#8217;s decision not to participate in any form of maintenance of licensure, including requiring any form of maintenance of licensure tied to maintenance of certification.  This section does not prevent a facility&#8217;s credentials committee from requiring physicians licensed pursuant to title 63, chapters 6 and 9, to meet continuing medical education requirements, as outlined in the rules of the appropriate state licensing board.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><em><u>Texas</u></em></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Texas bill was <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&amp;Bill=SB1148">recently signed by the Governor</a> and will become law on January 1, 2018. The relevant part of the legislation states, Except as otherwise provided by this section, the following entities may not differentiate between physicians based on a physician&#8217;s maintenance of certification: if the facility or hospital has an organized medical staff or a process for credentialing physicians; …. (b) An entity described by Subsection (a) may differentiate between physicians based on a physician&#8217;s maintenance of certification if: (1) the entity&#8217;s designation under law or certification or accreditation by a national certifying or accrediting organization is contingent on the entity requiring a specific maintenance of certification by physicians seeking staff privileges or credentialing at the entity; and (2) the differentiation is limited to those physicians whose maintenance of certification is required for the entity&#8217;s designation, certification, or accreditation as described by Subdivision (1). (c) An entity described by Subsection (a) may differentiate between physicians based on a physician&#8217;s maintenance of certification if the voting physician members of the entity&#8217;s organized medical staff vote to authorize the differentiation. (d) An authorization described by Subsection (c) may: (1) be made only by the voting physician members of the entity&#8217;s organized medical staff and not by the entity&#8217;s governing body, administration, or any other person; (2) subject to Subsection (e), establish terms applicable to the entity&#8217;s differentiation, including: (A) appropriate grandfathering provisions; and (B) limiting the differentiation to certain medical specialties; and (3) be rescinded at any time by a vote of the voting physician members of the entity&#8217;s organized medical staff.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Conclusion</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The anti-MOC rhetoric is real, and heated. A quick google search shows at least two websites dedicated to the anti-MOC movement. <a href="http://www.changeboardrecert.com/anti-moc.html">Change Board Recertification</a>, seems to collect articles about MOC and re-publish them all in one convenient website. The DOCS4Patient Care Foundation shows that – presumably in an attempt to gain more followers – proponents of anti-MOC legislation like to <a href="http://www.changeboardrecert.com/anti-moc.html">frame the issue</a> as “right to care” laws, an interesting tactic.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Proponents of the anti-MOC laws <a href="https://www.ncnp.org/journal-of-medicine/1757-more-states-consider-outlawing-forced-maintenance-of-certification.html">believe</a> that MOC restricts patient access by forcing older physicians into early retirement. It is our belief, however, that with the speed of innovation today, MOC is a critical part of patient care and upholding the Hippocratic Oath. By allowing physicians to continue practicing medicine without requiring MOC, patients may be put at risk.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In an attempt to keep up with the changing landscape, we will provide regular updates of bills introduced, passed and the subsequent regulations that are adopted.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2017/06/anti-moc-laws-picking-up-steam-across-the-united-states.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ABIM Increases Physician Choice with New Assessment Option</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2017/02/abim-increases-physician-choice-with-new-assessment-option.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2017/02/abim-increases-physician-choice-with-new-assessment-option.html#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[CME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.policymed.com/abim-increases-physician-choice-with-new-assessment-option/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="640" height="380" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABIM-Increases-Physician-Choice-with-New-Assessment-Option.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABIM-Increases-Physician-Choice-with-New-Assessment-Option.png 640w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABIM-Increases-Physician-Choice-with-New-Assessment-Option-300x178.png 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) is providing more choice to physicians who are working to maintain their board certification. ABIM has decided to take this step after physicians asked for more flexible options that affirm to themselves, their patients, and their peers that they are staying current in medical knowledge. As ABIM has [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="640" height="380" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABIM-Increases-Physician-Choice-with-New-Assessment-Option.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABIM-Increases-Physician-Choice-with-New-Assessment-Option.png 640w, https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABIM-Increases-Physician-Choice-with-New-Assessment-Option-300x178.png 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div><p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-transform: initial;">The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) is </span><a style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-transform: initial;" href="http://transforming.abim.org/abim-increases-physician-choice-with-new-assessment-option/">providing more choice</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-transform: initial;"> to physicians who are working to maintain their board certification. ABIM has decided to take this step after physicians asked for more flexible options that affirm to themselves, their patients, and their peers that they are staying current in medical knowledge.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">As ABIM has been re-thinking the process for continuous certification, the organization invited all 200,000 ABIM Board Certified physicians and twenty-seven medical societies to share input. This first phase of dialogue guided the ABIM Council, a body of practicing physicians from several internal medicine subspecialties, to update the assessment process.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The option that emerged as the one that provided the most choice, relevance and convenience was short assessments every two years emerged. This will help physicians to maintain their certification and confidence that they are staying current in their education.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Physicians will able to choose to take assessments every two years or every 10 years. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Details about the two-year assessment</strong></span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">You can choose to take the two-year assessment on your personal or work computer – or at a testing center.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">You do not need a passing score on every two-year assessment. However, if you are unsuccessful twice in a row or if there is a longer gap between assessments, you will need to take additional steps to maintain certification.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">You will have more dates from which to choose when scheduling the two-year assessment.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">This “knowledge check-in” offers more continuous learning, feedback and improvement. Results will be available immediately after the assessment. More feedback will follow.</span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><strong>General Details</strong></span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Beginning in 2018, physicians certified in Internal Medicine can choose to take shorter “knowledge check-ins”—at the location they choose—every two years.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">To assist physicians with adjusting to changes—and for ABIM to learn from the process— there will be no consequences for unsuccessful performance on the two-year assessment in 2018.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">ABIM will share updates on availability of these options for subspecialties in the coming months.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Physicians can still choose to take an assessment every 10 years in a testing center. ABIM is continuing to collaborate with physicians to make this option more reflective of practice.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">ABIM is also working to make the 10-year assessment open book.</span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Dr. Richard J. Baron, President and CEO of ABIM, created a video message about these changes, which can be found <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRnkQTxSZOM">here</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Industry Reaction</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> “ABIM is changing because physicians are changing it. We are very proud to be collaborating with the many doctors who are constructively helping us update the assessment process,” said Richard J. Baron, MD, ABIM’s President and CEO and a board certified internist who practiced for 30 years in his Philadelphia community.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">“Doctors want a certification program that integrates into their daily routine, while affirming to their patients and peers that they have up-to-date medical knowledge. That is exactly why ABIM is introducing assessment options.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">“By involving physicians in every step of the process, ABIM has been able to simplify its programs to focus on meaningful activities that increase knowledge, provide doctors confidence in their practice, and allow doctors more time to devote to patient care,” said Jeanne M. Marrazzo, MD, Chair of ABIM Council. “This work is constantly evolving as we move forward, and we’re proud that the steps we’re taking are informed by physicians who are dedicated to improving patient care.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">“The number of activities is just unprecedented in terms of ways we&#8217;ve been partnering with the physician community. Again, not abandoning the core principle of saying board certification means something,” said Clarence H. Braddock, III, MD, Chair of the ABIM Board of Directors. “It’s a badge of honor to have mastered a body of clinical knowledge and skills that you want to be able to proudly display, but at the same time, we want to make sure that it’s realistic and relevant through the eyes of the practicing physician.”</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2017/02/abim-increases-physician-choice-with-new-assessment-option.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>AMA Calls for End to Manditory Secured Exam for MOC</title>
		<link>https://www.policymed.com/2016/12/ama-calls-for-end-to-moc.html</link>
					<comments>https://www.policymed.com/2016/12/ama-calls-for-end-to-moc.html#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sullivan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[AMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maintenance of Certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.policymed.com/ama-calls-for-end-to-moc/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="295" height="202" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/6a00e5520572bb883401bb095c8ac0970d-800wi.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" /></div>In June 2016, at the AMA House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, one of the topics discussed was Maintenance of Certification. However, what was not mentioned in the AMA press (or really, any other press) was the fact that the AMA officially opposes mandatory ABMS recertification exams. Interestingly, the position took place with little fanfare: [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="295" height="202" src="https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/6a00e5520572bb883401bb095c8ac0970d-800wi.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" /></div><p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-transform: initial;">In June 2016, at the </span><a style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-transform: initial;" href="https://www.ama-assn.org/about-us/interim-meeting-house-delegates">AMA House of Delegates meeting</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-transform: initial;"> in Chicago, one of the topics discussed was Maintenance of Certification. However, what was not mentioned in the AMA press (or really, any other press) was the fact that the AMA </span><a style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-transform: initial;" href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2016/06/ama-calls-immediate-end-moc.html">officially opposes</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-transform: initial;"> mandatory ABMS recertification exams.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Interestingly, the position took place with little fanfare: it wasn’t listed in the <a href="https://wire.ama-assn.org/ama-news/ethics-gun-violence-top-stories-2016-ama-annual-meeting">Top 10 Stories from the AMA 2016 Meeting</a>, nor was it listed in the <a href="https://wire.ama-assn.org/ama-news/ehrs-moc-physicians-tackle-practice-issues-new-policy">coverage of the MOC resolutions</a> that passed. It was only mentioned in tweets by attendees. AMA only focused on publicizing the <a href="https://wire.ama-assn.org/ama-news/ehrs-moc-physicians-tackle-practice-issues-new-policy/">following MOC resolutions</a>:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Examining the activities that medical specialty organizations have underway to review alternative pathways for board recertification</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Determining whether there is a need to establish criteria and construct a tool to evaluate whether alternative methods for board recertification are equivalent to established pathways</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Asking the American Board of Medical Specialties to encourage its member boards to review their MOC policies regarding the requirements for maintaining underlying primary or initial specialty board certification in addition to subspecialty board certification to allow physicians the option to focus on MOC activities most relevant to their practice.</span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">While the AMA House of Delegates Reference Committee C did try to amend the resolution that called for an “immediate end of any mandatory, recertifying examination by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or other certifying organizations as part of the recertification process,” the HOD rejected modifications made by the committee, extracted it to a full vote on the house floor, and restored the language of the resolution. The resolution language, <a href="http://rebel.md/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Resolution-309-Final-Action.pdf">as passed</a>, reads:</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association call for the immediate end of any mandatory, secured recertifying examination by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or other certifying organizations as part of the recertification process for all those specialties that still require a secure, high-stakes recertification examination.</span></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">There were several delegates that <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/58594">opposed</a> the house action, saying that it shouldn’t try to do away with secure exams. Donna Sweet, MD, stated, “Secure simply means that it guarantees that you or the person are the person who is taking the test.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">ABMS, of course, opposes the AMA resolution. In a <a href="http://www.abms.org/news-events/response-to-the-american-medical-association-policy-on-secure-recertification-exam/">statement released</a> by the Association, they stated:</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Consumers, patients, hospitals and other users of the Board Certification credential expect board certified physicians to be up-to-date with the knowledge, judgment and skills of their specialty—both at the point of initial certification and along the physician’s career path – and to verify it through an external assessment. The privilege to self-regulate which physicians enjoy demands that we meet that expectation with more than just continuing medical education.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Continuing medical education is an important component of a physician’s continuous learning and an important part of Maintenance of Certification (MOC), but by itself is not sufficient to verify that a physician is up to date. The other components of MOC—professionalism, external assessment of knowledge, judgment and skills, and improvement in medical practice—are also important.</span></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The AMA also <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/58594">approved a resolution</a> to continue working with ABMS to “encourage the development by and sharing between specialty boards” of alternate ways to assess medical knowledge, other than by a secure exam. The AMA HOD also bolstered its support of using appropriate continuing medical education (CME) courses to maintain quality assessments of physicians. </span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.policymed.com/2016/12/ama-calls-for-end-to-moc.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>