As it continues to spiral out of control, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) issued a press release telling practicing physicians what they've "learned" from "key findings from a representative sample" of internists.
Sadly, how their "representative sample" of internists' survey responses was collected and reported for this press release is telling.
Reviewing the methods used for the survey collection, we see ABIM's "ALL DIPLOMATE" survey was really created from less than 0.2% of all internists they polled. (360 respondents of 196,867 emails sent) and the results were "weighted" from a select subset of the internists whom they repeatedly queried to assure an acceptable response rate, introducing substantial selection bias).
What the ABIM continues to ignore is the overwhelming rebuke of the MOC process from over 23,000 physicians in 2014 and a similar survey result from the membership of the American College of Cardiology.
Propaganda masquerading as flawed survey results that are obtained by unaccountable organizations with large conflicts of interest with the physician testing/quality industry has no place in the practice of medicine. Press releases such as this one issued by the ABIM are both irresponsible and misleading. By issuing this press release, the ABIM demonstrates its blatant disregard for the best interests of physicians and patient care just so they can maintain their lucrative MOC program.
-Wes
17 comments:
I love that..."REPRESENTITIVE SAMPLE"
And we're supposed to buy that garbage.
These survey results don't pass the even the simplest "sniff test". Really? Come on now, anyone who has even followed the ABIM facebook page has seen the uprising. I know what this smells like and I call BS!
Why wouldn't ABIM produce propaganda masquerading as flawed survey results? This is coming from an organization masquerading as "accountable both to the profession of medicine and to the public", when in reality they are accountable to no one.
When Dr. Baron and the rest of his insulated inner circle can address that little problem, they may be able to gain the attention of physicians who are tired of the tap dancing and smoke show.
Same old abysmal propaganda tactic from the ABMS risk managers in Chicago.
They cannot convince physicians so they are attempting to at least convince themselves.
I can see the internal memos and instant messaging now--passed among the big ABMS 24+1.
"It's unbearable. Physicians have a larger brain capacity than we supposed."
" Must keep cork tight on the MOC bottle, at all costs, and protect the $$$ stream. We are sunk without it."
"Rich, think of something or they will be asking us to follow a CMS-style 'pay for performance' plan at the ABMS next."
"Those impudent brats would try to enforce it too."
"Damn them all. Don't they recognize our sincere efforts
and appreciate the fact that we are reaching out. What do they want?"
"Rich, how about another photo shoot in the ABIM lobby? Your smile and straight teeth go a long way to prove the scientific value of MOC to docs and the public."
"No, forget that. Lynn just said it would be a bad idea for them to see how you are looking now."
"Rich, every bit of public exposure seems to put us in a bad light. Lynn is right."
'Maybe if I say, look, we got it wrong and then say MEAN IT after.'
"Rich, this is the ABIM not a damn Seinfeld episode. We don't do that. Get a grip on yourself. Save the tears for when the DOJ comes knocking for all the shit you pulled. You are going down for th..."
'What do you mean, me? They...tell us...'
"Who? What?"
"Don't be naïve. Surely, you know how it works here by now."
'Where's Christine and why has Bob abandoned his Wiley website and now he's left us. It's that damn girl, isn't it!'
"No, it's not that, he is in hot water over the IPC DOJ lawsuit and must keep a low profile for quite a while."
"I hope the six-figure Hospitalist Co. board payouts and the lucrative stock and options Bob cashed in were worth it!"
"What did he get for those options? Eighty..."
"Well, now he can afford to do whatever he wants. I guess now WE are not politically correct. For Pete's sake, how did he fool the British on the Digital Doctor stuff. Bob knows so little about EHR, it makes me wonder..."
"He's worse off than we are. Bob's been pushed off the pedestal. He got caught with his pants down on this one."
"It's been over ten months and nothing except that Donabedian love crap in the Times from Bob.
"How many occasions did we hear that cliché from Bob at our Four Seasons retreats."
"I agree. Where's that moral indignation from Bob, now, when we really need it?"
"Maybe we should distance ourselves from that greedy cheater."
"Just listen to us, we are starting to sound like 'them'! Remember we have to stick together and keep ourselves straight on our official stories."
"Geez, I still can't get over what Bob did...and how much he got paid for it. I missed that one."
"Get over it. You'll get your turn."
"No, I meant that I did not suspect what..."
'Look, my thirty five hours are up. I'm going home.'
"Rich, it's only Wednesday..and you are at home already just like the rest of us."
'Oh! You're right. Talk too you on Monday.'
ICD-10 has a code for the ABMS' sickening habitual behavior.
Type in your EHR: "Physicians bitten in the leg by a pea-brained dinosaur."
"Key survey findings from the ABIM's representative sample."
They say the survey is "for you", but they really know it was "for them."
Bottom line financial considerations and ruthless tactics means more money,
more often "for them".
That translates to being less time and money, more often for you.
From the mouth of Rich Baron
“These insights will empower our decision-making for the future by giving us direct insight into what physicians value as future components of our evolving MOC assessment.”
blah, blah,blah
Delay , obfuscate , no transparency , no communication , play for time.
Dr Baron... you've had over a year .
23000
endless societies
Sir , you should be ashamed.
Anon 05:46, that statement by Dr. Baron above “These insights will empower our decision-making for the future by giving us direct insight into what physicians value as future components of our evolving MOC assessment.” is absolutely correct, but not for the reasons that would be most apparent.
Another way of more directly stating the true sentiments: By providing the appearance of consideration of the views of practicing physicians, we plan to continue to manipulate existing diplomates and new candidates into participating in MOC, which provides nearly half of our revenue annually and would result in our financial ruin if we were ever forced to live without MOC. So regardless of our highly refined tap dancing and smoke show, maintaining that revenue stream is of primary importance here at ABIM, and we will never willingly part with it, despite the complete lack of objective evidence that it helps anyone other than ABIM.
Finaaally... Baron the Disappearing SPEAKS !!!
What is the overall vision or philosophy ABIM is looking to embrace regarding MOC? ABIM will continue to focus on initial certification and recertification, making sure that recertification focuses on staying current and making sure recertification is meaningful and relevant.
What additional changes to MOC is ABIM considering? ABIM will focus on moving away from the secure 10-year exam, making sure its replacement is meaningful and relevant.
Will ABIM consult the internal medicine community prior to announcement — let alone implementation — of further changes? If so, when and how?
Dr. Baron stated that ABIM will continue to collect feedback in the process of “co-creation.”
What is ABIM’s timeline for implementing the co-created, re-engineered MOC? Could ABIM share its current form and provide updates as adjustments occur?
For example, part of the Assessment 2020 Task Force was to reconsider the secure exam. For many diplomates, the 10-year exam is due soon
.
Should they wait to see if a different method of “exam”/assessment will be rolled out?
ABIM shares the community's sense of urgency and plans an announcement shortly after the upcoming ABIM Board of Directors meeting in a few weeks.
What does ABIM view as the respective roles of the ABIM Board of Directors, ABIM Council, ABIM specialty boards and ABIM staff in this process?
Dr. Baron summarized the ABIM governance structure and stated his belief that the specialty boards will be more attuned to the needs of each specialty.
http://www.gastro.org/news_items/2016/4/13/the-latest-from-abim
ALLOW ME TO INTERPRET..... "STFU and don't bother us"
Oklahoma stops MOC April 11, 2016.
Governor signs bill into law.
Co-creation? That's 'Rich'. I thought co-creation was restricted to the intimacy of the dacha. (Dickey's Dacha!)
Anon 05:46, that statement by Dr. Baron above “These insights will empower our decision-making for the future by giving us direct insight into what physicians value as future components of our evolving MOC assessment.” is absolutely correct, but not for the reasons that would be most apparent.
Another way of more directly stating the true sentiments: By providing the appearance of consideration of the views of practicing physicians, we plan to continue to manipulate existing diplomates and new candidates into participating in MOC, which provides nearly half of our revenue annually and would result in our financial ruin if we were ever forced to live without MOC. So regardless of our highly refined tap dancing and smoke show, maintaining that revenue stream is of primary importance here at ABIM, and we will never willingly part with it, despite the complete lack of objective evidence that it helps anyone other than ABIM.
Ed, I called ABIM to ask why I have to pay for MOC and participate. They told me that the ABIM did not make that decision and ABIM has no control over it. The ABIM spokesperson also told me that the ABMS makes the decisions and is responsible for creating and requiring MOC. ABIM suggested I address my concerns about MOC with ABMS--i.e.,for me being required to pay and participate.
Can anyone clarify this for me?
Does the ABMS (parent organization) in Chicago under Lois Nora, MD, have the authority to mandate MOC. Is that how it really happened? Or was it conceived and born with a few member boards. first--out of financial reasons and certainly not medical science.
If the ABIM is a passive party--under the ABMS--why then is the ABMS not also holding the ABIM accountable for its troubling unethical behavior and corrupt financial practices. Does this fact of the ABIM having to comply with the ABMS not point the finger back at the ABMS for not doing anything to change the culture? Or are contradictions and change of policy the norm created by the member boards to support the lies and the money stream?
Next point: in discussing accountability of member boards with the ABMS, in particular regarding the ABIM and some of their more 'delicate maneuvers', I was told directly that each member board can set its own policies.
If that is so, in theory we need only one member board to start the cavalcade in the right direction to end MOC.
MOC started with one board. It can end with one board doing the right thing. The others may be more readily able to follow. Perhaps we should push hard to get rid of unresponsive medical society officers and get some that will push for what is in the best interest of medicine, patients and physicians.
How is the ABMS just like a Vaudevillian show? The end of the road for this show too.
A typical Vaudeville performance was made up of a series of separate, unrelated acts grouped together on a common bill. Sounds about right.
Baron and Nora are "now appearing" as an outdated Vaudevillian act recognized by astute bloggers here under the once classy name of "Razzle" and "Dazzle."
I hate to be so blunt, but Vaudeville was deep-sixed when it was no longer relevant or useful. And so should the entire ABMS be laid to rest. We are not talking about a person, but the entire ABMS organization. It would be the compassionate thing to do, imo--to just end it.
It is always hard to determine what to do in life, but we all recognize it is over--the "Razzle" and "Dazzle" pretense has played itself out.
The ABMS had a good early run and then it just got old, dysfunctional, inwardly nasty and cranky. It is no longer even funny--this American Bumble of Medical Societies. How can anyone even go for that silly trill and fake vibrato of emotion.
The professional mind went, no longer capable of independent thinking--only parodies of intelligent thought. The personas became rotten and nasty like Holmboe and Langdon, Cassel and Baron. They did not entertain but just hurt a lot of folks.
Nobody wanted to be "Razzle Dazzled" any longer by them. So the venues dried up and the money stopped coming in. That's what is happening to the ABMS through the venue of MOC--the big attraction. Actually it is a big distraction now.
Everyone looks at the name in lights and just shakes their head.
MOC has had its run. Now it is over. It is time to say adieu, adieu, adieu.
What ever happened to Vaudeville ultimately? It went away in the 1930's about the same time the ABMS was sprouting its early seed. Look at what is happening now 80 years later.
Now the professionalism is so bad the ABMS is being sued for bad performances across the board. The ABIM is currently being sued and countersued. Every physician has the right to sue the ABMS and their particular member board and should consider doing so.
Just ask them to refund your ticket price. They have to give it back. Ask for it now. It's your money. They are all bad unprofessional actors making a song that just hurts the ear. It is all so out of tune. What was promised they did not and could not deliver. But the contemporary bad actors never intended to. It was just about the money and what it could buy and control.
The whole organization of 24 boards, the executives, officers and board, including the corrupt Chicago business managers are all guilty or varying breaches of medical and business ethics resulting in massive sums of involuntary payouts to themselves over the years.
These huge fees paid for bad performance lined the pockets of executives who in turn provided political favors and corporate services to third-party stakeholders--the real clients who like the ABMS executives did not have the physicians' or patients' best interest in mind.
The End of "Brass-Knuckle-Mandates" in Maintenance of Certification
"Oklahoma Bans Forced MOC, Becomes the First 'Right to Care' State"
http://rebel.md/oklahoma-bans-forced-moc-becomes-the-first-right-to-care-state/
Oklahoma! You make me cry with joy that patients may have a fighting chance and right to receive their health care from a physician. The ABMS is harming medicine and patients by creating a shortage of physicians with their mandated MOC.
Every state and territory of the United States (and let's add Singapore) should write and pass a similar bill that makes MOC truly voluntary.
Continuing medical education should be a breath of fresh air and joy--not a brass knuckle tied to a corrupt money-grubbing cartel with egregious financial and political conflicts of interest.
WOW.
Oklahoma is the beginning.
Let the defunding of the ABIM start in earnest.
Post a Comment