You Know There's a Problem with MOC When...

... yet another antitrust lawsuit is filed against ANOTHER American Board of Medical Specialties' member board.  This time, the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery joined the antitrust litigation fray on September 11, 2019.

Look for those Maintenance of Certification® (MOC®) fees to continue to skyrocket as the certification cartel extracts more fees from working stiffs doctors to help pay their mounting legal bills.

-Wes

PS: Want to help with this David vs Goliath battle to help end MOC®? Click here.

Why the U.S. Specialty Boards Were Sued and Why Those Lawsuits Are Important

I hope every working U.S. physician takes 9 minutes to view this video on why the lawsuits against  the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) member boards were filed and why those lawsuits are so important to our profession.

Please view and share with your colleagues.

An update on the status of those lawsuits will appear on this blog's pages soon.



-Wes

The ABMS Spider and the Fly

Mary Howitt

“Will you you walk into my parlour, said a Spider to a Fly;
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy.
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I have many pretty things to shew when you get there.
Oh, no, no! said the little Fly; to ask me is in vain:
For who goes up that winding stair shall ne'er come down again.

Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, Dear friend, what can I do
To prove the warm affection I have ever felt tor you?
I have within my parlour great store of all that's nice:
I'm sure you're very welcome; will you please to take a slice!
Oh, no, no! said the little Fly; kind sir, that cannot be;
For I know what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see.

Sweet creature, said the Spider, you're witty and you're wise;
How handsome are your gaudy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I have a little looking-glass upon my parlour-shelf;
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself.
Oh, thank you, gentle sir, she said, for what you're pleased to say;
And wishing you good morning now, I'll call another day.

The Spider turn'd him round again, and went into his den,
For well he knew that silly Fly would soon come back again.
And then he wore a tiny web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready for to dine upon the Fly;
And went out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
Come hither, pretty little Fly, with the gold and silver wing.

Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily flattering words, came slowly fluttering by.
With humming wings she hung aloft, then nearer and nearer drew.
Thinking only of her crested head and gold and purple hue:
Thinking only of her brilliant wings, poor silly thing! at last,
Up jump'd the cruel Spider, and firmly held her fast!

He dragg'd her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour; but she ne'er came down again.
And now, my pretty maidens, who may this story hear,
To silly, idle, flattering words, I pray you ne'er give ear;
Unto an evil counsellor close heart, and ear, and eye,
And learn a lesson from this tale of the Spider and the Fly.

~By Mary Howitt, 1829
* * *

If you do Maintenance of Certification, you are just a silly little Fly.

It is chillingly apposite: for the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and their 24 member boards' to live, autonomous independent-thinking physicians must die.

Spiders can never stop being Spiders.

"And now, my pretty MOC maidens, who may this story hear,
To silly, idle, flattering words, I pray you ne'er give ear;
Unto an evil ABMS counsellor close heart, and ear, and eye,
And learn a lesson from this tale of the Spider and the Fly..."

... then donate to Practicing Physicians of America's expanded legal fund drive.

-Wes

Happy New Year, MOC!

As many of us head back to work to start a New Year, let's not forget that physicians have until January 15, 2019 to "comment" on the ABMS Vision Commission's (un-editable) Draft Report.

While Paul Teirstein, MD and his colleagues at the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS) did a nice job dissecting many of the problems with the Vision Commission's report and made it easy to "comment" to the Commission's Draft Report using SurveyMonkey, I would like to add a few important observations about the Vision Commission's report (and the response by NBPAS) that are not mentioned and remain stumbling blocks for me.

First of all, should physicians be bound by an adhesion contract (seen here) with Board Certification and MOC (or whatever "continuous certification" becomes called) that can change on the whim of the ABMS and their member boards "from time to time?" This gives unilateral control to ABMS and prevents appropriate checks and balances. How is this helpful to anyone except the ABMS member boards and their collaborating corporate entities - all of whom already enjoy a substantial position of power and monetary influence. Remember the history of MOC reviewed in the antitrust complaint (starting on Page 5) filed five days before the Vision Commission's "Draft Report" appeared.

Also, those corporate entities that collude with MOC are not mentioned and are extensive. A partial list includes ABMS Solutions, LLC, hospitals and the ABMS Multispecialty Portfolio Program, publishers like the Massachusetts Medical Society and Wolters Kluwer, Pearson LLC, CECity, Premier, Inc, PriceWaterhouseCooper, and subspecialty societies like the ACC and ACP - all who stand to benefit financially from MOC. Remember, a significant portion of the ABMS Vision Commission are not practicing clinical physicians and are deeply conflicted with corporate entities.

And let's not forget that the Commission's report leaves the harms already experienced by physicians and their families unmentioned (for obvious reasons) - again, see the recent antitrust Complaint filed. MOC was always about money and power for the ABMS and their member boards. The ABMS fully intends for MOC (soon to be rebranded as CertLink®) to shift from a desktop platform at a PearsonVue testing center to a mobile platform in the palm of our hands as "MOC pilots" become permanent in 2019! This translates to more distractive screen time for physicians away from patients and a lucrative life-long money stream to ABMS and their collaborators.

I would encourage physician to consider copying the content of this blog post and morph it into your own "comment" to the Vision Commission if you feel it would be worthwhile.

Also, consider donating to Practicing Physicians of America's legal fund. I believe you'll get more for your hard-earned money that protects your interests that way.

-Wes

On Trust

Elizabeth A. McGlynn, PhD, immediate past chair of the ABIM Foundation and Vice President for Kaiser Permanente Research and Executive Director of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Effectiveness and Safety Research (CESR) with Richard Baron, MD, President and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine,  at the 2018 ABIM Foundation Forum on "(Re-)Building Trust"

Recently, the ABIM Foundation hosted a webinar entitled "(Re-)Building Trust." Oh, the irony. The fact they need to have such a conference is telling of the dire straights the staid and outdated medical credentialing complex has become.

As physicians who funded the ABIM Foundation, why do we fund such nonsense?  The American Board of Internal Medicine has never sufficiently explained why this organization felt compelled to use over $78 million of physician testing fees to create the ABIM Foundation or how and why it uses that money. Is it really to fund such conferences?  Or might conferences like this really be a distraction for the real reason the ABIM Foundation was created: their retirement fund. By the way, whatever happened to those funds shipped off to the Cayman Islands? Why will we lose our privileges at hospitals or insurance payments if we don't pay into this scheme? And why is the ABIM Foundation colluding with Kaiser Permanente directors? What does Kaiser get for this relationship?

If physicians trusted the ABIM, we would not have to ask such questions and the ABIM Foundation would not have to hold conferences on "re-building" trust.

Three years ago, Richard Baron, MD issued the now infamous: "We got it wrong" mea culpa press release when the 2014 iterations of Maintenance of Certification (MOC) foisted on US physicians resulted in a powerful working physician backlash. Lots of soft-shoe, "listening," and MOC program changes have occurred since then. But in reality four years later, little has changed other than parsing our payments into annual aliquots rather than a single lump sum every-10-year payment. The growth of fees is back on schedule, climbing an incredible 276% in the past 18 years.  Even the ridiculous Part IV of MOC is back as before.

It is hard to trust any business, especially a nonprofit organization when they ignore the customer.

We should not lose sight that physicians are the customer of ABIM, not patients. We pay for their medical accolade and the paper certificate that ABIM issues when we successfully complete our initial Board certification and (now) subsequent MOC requirements.

There are many within the US medical board credentialing system who feel otherwise; for them, they are there to serve "the public." Yet this deflection is little more than a propaganda message created to justify their use of our money for their political and financial purposes.

When we see our funds continuing to be wasted at Las Vegas convention venues for American Board of Medical Specialties meetings with their "stakeholders" we realize that this old-school attitude of colleague disrespect and self-importance is endemic to the entire US medical board certification and medical credentialing industry. Hard to re-establish trust with overt demonstrations such as these.

-Wes

PS: Wonder what you can do to change things?  Donate here and get a free book at the same time! We're 78% of the way there!

Enough is Enough

It is 8:30PM CST on the 23rd of May, 2018.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has still not posted their financials from fiscal year 2017, due May 15th, 2018 after an extension is granted by the Internal Revenue Service, on their website. I wouldn't be surprised if they're insolvent, or close to it.

Maintenance of certification (MOC™) is expensive, costing physicians over $23,000 every 10 years in fees, travel, and time from work. Doctors are sick and tired of being manipulated and coerced into playing the continuous certification game created by the non-profit ABIM that has never been independently proven to improve patient safety, care quality, or patient outcomes after a doctor's initial board certification. Doctors are especially sick and tired of these unaccountable member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) mandating busy work that, if not performed, would limit our ability to maintain our hospital credentials, receive insurance payments, or even obtain state licensure.

We are also sick and tired of being ethnographic research subjects and "HIPAA Business Associates" for the member boards of the ABMS so our data can be bought and sold while board members and officers of the ABMS member boards enjoy their multi-million dollar condominiums with chauffeur-driven BMW town cars, office buildings, first class and spousal air travel, Cayman Island retirement funds, and health club memberships all on our hard-earned nickel.

The conflicts of interest created by MOC spread far and wide: BCBS, CECity/Premier, PearsonVue, ABMS Solutions, LLC, IPC The Hospitalist Group, National Committee on Quality Assurance, American College of Physicians, Wolters Kluwer, Reed Elsevier, UCSF, Massachusetts Medical Society, the AMA, AHA, CMSS, among others.

The financial orgy within the bureaucratic halls of the ACGME has been going on for years at the expense of hard-working doctors. MOC fees alone have mushroomed 244% from 2000-2014 to fund these shenanigans. Numerous doctors are burning out, or quitting altogether, to avoid the ruse. It must come to an end. The integrity of our profession demands nothing less.

Please join me in this GoFundMe crowdfunding drive by Practicing Physicians of America to end MOC™ nationwide for all subspecialties. The specifics of the campaign's purpose are outlined in the campaign's "story" on the GoFundMe page. Please give generously.

It's time to stand up for what's right.

Enough is enough.

-Wes

Earning MOC™ Points: A Self-Paid Advertorial

As a follow-up of my earlier post on the American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS) Maintenance of Certification™(MOC™) program's tax on medical education, I was sent the "approved" responses of two different physicians that were required to answer questions to "earn" ABMS MOC™credits from the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Scientific Sessions after the meeting. These responses were "approved" by an HRS "reviewer" so the doctors could apply these points to remain "Board certified" and employed with their hospital systems. Each doctor had to write between 50 and 100 words (no more, no less) in response to questions posed by the ABIM. Despite their different responses, each received the exact same "feedback" that included links to various Heart Rhythm Society, American College of Cardiology, AMA, ABMS and non-governmental organizations' policies and web pages.

(See Physician 1's responses here and Physician 2's responses here.)

Given these canned responses to these physicians feedback, how is this time-consuming, costly, and meaningless "feedback" exercise for "earning" MOC™ points anything but a self-paid advertorial for the HRS, ACC, AMA, ABMS, and other non-governmental organizations?

It is a sad commentary that our own subspecialty societies legitimize this corrupt process despite all that we know about it today.

-Wes

For Texas Legislators: MOC's Myriad Conflicts of Interest

The American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) proprietary continuing education program has a myriad of conflicts of interest. I thought I would assemble a partial list of some of them below:

1) The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), the largest ABMS member board responsible for credentialing one-quarter of all US physicians, is increasingly in debt thanks to high salaries and expenses. Its latest 2015 Form 990 shows a NEGATIVE asset and fund balance of balance of $50,642,980.

2) The cost of for participating in the proprietary ABMS MOC program has grown far in excess of the rate of inflation (16.3 to 17.2% annually), without adding any appreciable change to the product delivered to physicians or the public.

3) The ABIM Foundation, which was reported as being created in 1999 on federal tax forms from 2008-2013, has a POSITIVE balance of $77,255,188 on its 2015 Form 990. Much of this balance was secretly transferred from the ABIM physician testing fees from 1990-1999, ten years before the organization was reportedly "created." Furthermore, the Foundation is domiciled in PA, not Iowa, as it was claimed from 1999-2013. With some of those funds, the ABIM purchased a $2.3 million condominium that came complete with a chauffeur-driven Mercedes S-class town car for itself in December 2007.

4) Christine Cassel, MD not only worked as President and CEO of the ABIM and its Foundation from 2004-2014, she also secretly served on the Board of Kaiser Foundation and Hospitals, earning $1,683,221. From 2008 through 2013, she also served on the Board of Directors at Premier, Inc, the largest US hospital procurement firm, earning 230,000 in case and stock in 2013. (Here's the breakdown of her take). None of these conflicts were ever disclosed until she was investigated by Propublica before becoming the President and CEO of the National Quality Forum. From 2010-2014, the ABIM paid a little-known company, CECity, Inc., over $5.5 million to process physician patient survey/practice improvement survey data. Shortly after Dr. Cassel left the ABIM, CECity, Inc was bought by Premier, Inc for $400 million in 2015.

5) Robert Wachter, MD served as a consultant and board member for IPC Hospitalist Company while working as Chairman of the Board of the ABIM/ABIM Foundation in 2014. IPC Hospitalist company was investigated for overbilling Medicare and Medicaid patients and paid $60 million to settle Medicare/Medicaid false claims act violations with the DOJ February 6, 2017.

6) The ABIM has been lobbying Congress for years, but such lobbying has never been disclosed to the public via Form 990 tax forms.

7) The adverse effects of MOC on physicians and patients have never been studied. Yet the ABIM has been conducting research on physicians (see here and here) without their consent or Institutional Review Board oversight, potentially in violation of Protection of Human Subject statutes of the Department of Health and Human Services.

8) The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the American Hospital Association (AHA) are both member organizations of the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Maintenance of Certification (MOC) favors hospitals eager to limit competition.

9) Margaret E. O’Kane is founder and president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). Margaret E. O’Kane is founder and president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). The NCQA is responsible for credentialing insurance companies that must accept ABMS MOC as a condition if their credentialing under the Affordable Care Act. Ms. O'Kane is also a public board member of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) that actively promotes the ABMS MOC program that benefits the ABMS. In addition, Richard J. Baron, MD, the current President and CEO of the ABIM, served as member of the Standards Committee for the NCQA.

10) The ABMS sells credentialing information on physicians through its wholly-owned subsidiary, ABMS Solutions, LLC, a for-profit corporation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

11) The American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), one of the ABMS member boards, holds ABFM Realty, LLC, a for-profit real estate company that manages commercial real estate and is funded almost entirely by physician testing fees.

12) The American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) has numerous real estate holdings surrounding its North Carolina address and contracted with its retired CEO, James A Stockman, III, MD to work 8 hours per week for $793,438 in 2014.

These are just a few of the conflicts inherent to the ABMS MOC product. Sadly, there have been many more throughout the years, including cozy relationships with major US academic institutions.

-Wes

Bringing the ABMS MOC Program Before the FTC

Looks like the new Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Maureen K. Ohlhausen might take an interest in the onerous and costly American Board of Medical Specialties' Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program:

Testifying on behalf of the FTC before the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen noted that while occupational licensing can help protect consumers from health and safety risks and support other valuable public policy goals, unwarranted restrictions can harm competition, leaving consumers with higher-priced, lower-quality, and less convenient services.

“From, a competition standpoint, occupational regulation can be especially worrisome when regulatory authority is delegated to a board composed of members of the occupation it regulates,” Commissioner Ohlhausen said.

According to the testimony, this type of board may make regulatory decisions that serve the private economic interests of its members and not the policies of the state (emphasis mine). Such decisions could result in occupational restrictions that discourage new entrants; deter competition among licensees and from providers in related fields; and suppress truthful, nondeceptive advertising, and innovative products or services that could challenge the status quo.

The testimony notes that while the principles of federalism embodied in the state action doctrine limit the reach of federal antitrust laws when a restraint on competition is imposed by a state, this does not mean that all state regulators are exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Through its enforcement and advocacy work, the Commission has helped to define the contours of the state action doctrine for actions taken by state boards composed of private actors – culminating in last year’s decision by the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC.

-Wes

ABIM Stationary Sidebars: MOC and UCSF

I attended the University of California, San Francisco's (UCSF) electrophysiology program from 1993-1994. As I continue to explore the myriad of conflicts of interest inherent to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, it has come as quite a surprise to me that so many members of my alma mater (and the institution itself) were either passive or active participants in  the strongman tactics used by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) as a "message and deterrent" (as explained by former President and CEO of the ABIM, Christine Cassel, MD) to control the ABIM/ABMS monopoly on continuing medical education in the United States.

Let me explain.

In a retaliatory letter dated May 8, 2012, authored by Ms. Lynn Landon, the non-physician Chief Operating Officer of the ABIM at the time, Jaime Salas-Rushford, MD was accused of forwarding, prior to ever taking the ABIM Board certification exam, board review questions to the ABIM-certified instructor of the CME-accredited Arora Board Review course. About three years after the fact and after 139 others had already been sued or sanctioned for attending the same course (or at the very least, like a flashback to the McCarthy era, had warning letters "added to their file") this retaliatory letter declared that ABIM imposed an immediate, unlimited revocation of Board certification of Dr. Sala-Rushford and to "notify the Medical Board in every jurisdiction in which you are licensed" without due process.

On the stationary sidebar of that letter appear the names of the officers of the ABIM and it’s board members at the time: Chair Catherine R Lucey, MD, Chair-Elect Robert M Wachter, MD, Secretary-Treasurer Talmadge E King, MD, and President and CEO Christine Cassel, MD among others. Were these leaders listed in the sidebar mere figureheads of the ABIM when this occurred or were they ultimately responsible for the organizations' actions as their positions suggest?

It is remarkable that three of the above senior ABIM leaders were on staff at UCSF at the time. These same individuals now hold significant leadership positions at the USCF medical school. Dr. King serves as Dean of the UCSF Medical School since 26 May 2015, Dr. Lucey as the Vice Dean for Education, and Dr. Wachter serves as Professor and Chair of the Department of Medicine. In addition to their current academic positions at UCSF, these same individuals hold leadership in other organizations within the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME):

• Dr. Lucey serves as an at-large board member of the American Board of Medical Specialties 2016-2017 and on the Board of Directors of the of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).


• Dr. King has a long history of serving on the Board of Directors of the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) from 2010-2017 as an unpaid board member and currently works alongside the organization’s founder and President, Ms. Margaret E. O’Kane. Remember that NCQA, under Ms. O'Kane's direction, developed, maintained, and expanded the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), the nation's most widely used quality measurement tool and has grown to a $50 million company with almost 300 employees. NCQA is also the main accreditor of recognized medical homes and one of two accrediting organizations permitted by federal law to accredit plans in the new health insurance exchange marketplaces that came online October 1, 2010, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Because the NCQA also credentials insurance providers as part of the ACA, one insurer quality metric they created requires physicians to "maintain" their certification via ABMS MOC programs if they want to receive payments from those insurers. Furthermore, the NCQA and the ABMS will continue to directly benefit from "quality" rules that they have put into place and lobbied Congress to enact laws such as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). MACRA's Merit-based Incentive Performance is MOC on steroids (see comments to the final rule). While NCQA maintains the quality measurement tool that is used in MACRA to determine US physician pay based on their notion of care "value," much of the NCQA's own IRS 2015 Form 990 is redacted. Who is protecting our patients' interests when even the IRS allows this to occur?


• Dr. Wachter has his own financial conflicts with MOC that also benefitted the UCSF. According to IRS Form 990's, in 2012 when the above sanction letter was issued, Dr. Wachter served as 'Director-Chair" of the ABIM earning $38,888 from the ABIM and $6,626 from the ABIM Foundation.
  
  While serving as "Director-Chair" of the ABIM and Director of the ABIM Foundation, Dr. Wachter was also simultaneously serving as Director of the IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc, reportedly running a “leadership development course (at UCSF) for their practice group leaders.” Dr. Wachter's financial haul from his relationship with IPC was significant. He pocketed 1,355 shares of IPC stock valued at $50.68 on 1 Aug 2013 and another 2650 shares of stock valued at $58.50 on 2 January 2014. According to SEC filings, he earned $210,586 in 2014 ($ 108,000 as cash, $ 55,000 in stock and $ 47,526 in options). USCF benefitted from a fellowship grant with IPC brokered by Dr. Wachter that began sometime in 2010 or 2011 (Dr. Wachter's description of the program was published on his blog 18 November 2011.) On 17 June 2014, the Department of Justice filed suit against IPC Hospitalist Company alleging the company overbilled federal health insurance systems for physician evaluation and services. Nonetheless, it appears Dr. Wachter still received a stock option award of 2186 shares of IPC on 2 Jan 2015. Undeterred by the DOJ suit (or perhaps because of it), TeamHealth acquired IPC Hospitalist Company for hefty $80.25 per share on 23 Nov 2015, again profiting Dr. Wachter and UCSF (with whom he had a publicly-disclosed sharing agreement where he kept 80% and UCSF received 20% of this relationship). As of 17 Jan 2017, it appears a settlement agreement in the DOJ's suit against IPC The Hospitalist Company will be reached soon. In retrospect, watching Dr. Wachter doing an Elvis impersonation at Mandalay Casino in Las Vegas on behalf of corporate medicine at patients' expense with the tacit approval of the Dean of the UCSF Medical School reflects poorly on the University. These activities also serve to erode any remaining trust practicing physicians have on the unproven ABMS MOC program to serve in our patients' best interest.

It is remarkably coincidental that on 27 December 2012, an article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine by one of Wachter’s colleagues at UCSF, Robert B. Baron, MD written in conjunction with John Iglehart, a “national correspondent” for the New England Journal of Medicine, explaining the controversy surrounding MOC and reinforcing the need for it. Dr. Robert Baron (no relation to Richard Baron, MD of the ABIM) never disclosed his simultaneous collegial associations with so many in leadership positions of the ABIM at the time, nor did either author mention the fact that the "NEJM Group" would be announced in March, 2013 to profit the Massachusetts Medical Society that included the launch of their Knowledge+ Maintenance of Certification “state-of-the-art adaptive learning” educational product April 16, 2014.

Who wouldn't want to join such a financial and reputational party bestowed upon these former ABIM leadership physicians? What medical center wouldn't like to benefit from the ABMS MOC system so many from UCSF have? How many other institutions are? Given what we now know about these colluding private organizations and their ethical and financial tactics, why haven't these respected leaders come forward to denounce the activities of the ABIM for which they served? Perhaps these leaders are fearful UCSF would lose their ACGME accreditation as a teaching institution eligible for additional Medicare training funds if they did. Or perhaps these individuals saw little risk of collateral damage to their professional reputation if ABIM used its strongman tactics against a small number of vulnerable, less prominent physician colleagues.

The irony of the ABIM requiring doctor clients of Arora Board Review subject to the sting operation organized by an undisclosed convicted felon to participate in “ethics” courses and pay additional fees to the ABIM before their board certification credential could be reinstated should be lost on no one.

According to USCF's own Faculty Code of Conduct: "The integrity of the faculty-student relationship is the foundation of the University’s educational mission. This relationship vests considerable trust in the faculty member, who, in turn, bears authority and accountability as mentor, educator, and evaluator. The unequal institutional power inherent in this relationship heightens the vulnerability of the student and the potential for coercion. The pedagogical relationship between faculty member and student must be protected from influences or activities that can interfere with learning consistent with the goals and ideals of the University." I would argue that the unequal institutional power carried by the ABIM (and other ABMS member boards) that can revoke a physician's ability to practice or earn a living on the basis of an unproven repeated testing is even larger and warrants even greater scrutiny.

It is clear that the complex financial interrelations of many tax-exempt private organizations that require the ABMS MOC credential have developed over the years to monopolize the physician continuing education process. In my opinion, it is far too coincidental that all of these physicians a single institution just happened to hold unelected leadership positions in so many of these interrelated private entities that financially benefit from MOC at the same time. I also believe the fact that another physician from the same institution published a manuscript in the New England Journal of Medicine while his colleagues stood to benefit politically and financially from their positions gives the appearance of collusion. I believe the UC Board of Regents, Attorney General of California, and/or even the Governor of California have a responsibility to investigate the use of public monies and academic positions to benefit these many non-governmental private entities that act outside of University responsibilities and act, as one independent journalist described them, "more akin to a protection racquet."

The ABMS Maintenance of Certification controversy and those culpable for its strongman tactics extends far further than just the ABIM. When respected leaders of the academic community fail to speak out about the irresponsible activities that occurred during their tenure with the organization, I believe they passively condone them. I suspect this is why we have heard little from other members of the academic community since the collusion extends to current board members of the NCQA, AAMC, ABMS, the New England Journal of Medicine, and other prominent academic institutions like UCSF.

Practicing US physicians voted to end the ABMS MOC program before the AMA House of Delegates meeting in June 2016 because of the unexplained financial dealings and the strongman tactics employed by the organization, yet it continues, even now. This no longer surprises us since the AMA is a member organization of the ACGME, too.

How high do the conflicts go in the US medical education system?

It is now clear they go all the way to the top. It is also clear why.

It's time for the AMA to shut the ABMS MOC program down as practicing US physicians have voted because it's doing more harm than good, not only to reputable practicing US physicians nationwide, but to their patients and academic institutions (like my alma mater) that purport to train and educate physicians to become ethical, hard-working, trustworthy doctors without fear of reprisal for educating themselves any way they choose.

-Wes

Disclaimer: I serve as an expert witness on behalf of Jaime Salas-Rushford, MD.

Physician Burnout and MOC: Treating the Cause, Not the Symptoms

This brilliant essay appeared in Practical Neurology Nov/Dec 2016 issue by Paul G. Mathew, MD, FAAN, FAHS. Dr. Mathew is on staff in the Department of Neurology and is Director of Continuing Medical Education at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, John R. Graham Headache Center, and staff neurologist at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates and the Cambridge Health Alliance. He  also serves as the neurology representative on the volunteer advisory board of the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons. 

Here's a brief example:

WHAT DO PRIVATE PAYERS GAIN FROM REQUIRING MOC?

As a volunteer board member of NBPAS (no compensation or honorarium as opposed to the salaries of ABMS board members, which can range from $300,000 to greater than $800,000), I have often wondered why private payers require MOC when Medicare does not require board certification or MOC. The answer is quite disturbing. Private payers actually participate in certification, which is issued by the National Committee of Quality Assurance (NCQA). Margaret E. O’Kane is the founder and president of the NCQA, and she is also a member of the ABMS Board of Directors. The NCQA requires private payers to require physicians to participate in MOC in order to be NCQA certified. Thus, anyone contracting with a private payer will require MOC. In the conflicted case of Ms. O’Kane, she profits from the NCQA requiring private payers to require physicians to participate in MOC, and then she profits again from her ABMS position when said physicians must pay to comply with MOC requirements.

Read the whole thing.

Dr. Mathew will be giving Neurology Grand Rounds at Michigan State University/Sparrow entitled "Maintenance of Certification: Reform or Reboot?" on 13 Jan 2017 from 07:30-08:30 AM EST. All are welcome to attend.

-Wes

Hillary Clinton's Physician Does Not Participate in MOC

In case anyone cares, Lisa R, Bardack, MD, reportedly Hillary Clinton's personal physician who issued a letter in 2015 concerning Ms. Clinton's fitness to run for President of the United States, does not participate in the American Board of Medical Specialties' Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program:

(Click to enlarge)

Classic.

-Wes

Too Little Too Late: The ABIM Foundation Sells Its Condo

It was a story that broke on this blog nearly two years ago when the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation was putting their luxury condominium, complete with a chauffeur-driven Mercedes S-Class town car that was purchased with physician certification and re-certification fees, up for sale.

Over 550 days later, we find the notorious ABIM Foundation condominium was finally sold on 6/21/2016 for $1,650,000 representing an up-front cash loss of $650,000.

But let's not forget the other associated fees required to sell a condo:

Real estate commission (6%): ($99,000)
Transfer Tax as buyer (2%) (2007): $46,000
Transfer Tax as seller (2%) (2016): $33,000
Title insurance: $10,000
Other fees: deed preparation, attorney fees, recording fees, etc. $10,000.
Furniture expense: $56,267


And then there's the annual condo fees, cable, phone, electric, cleaning, etc., that came to $41,000-$50,000 annually (approximately $450,000 over 9 years) (Source: Richard Baron, MD, President and CEO of the ABIM and ABIM Foundation)

All told, ABIM took $2,356,267 million of ABIM diplomat's cash and lost at least $1,265,267 on our behalf.

So much for "Choosing Wisely®."

But let's face it, incurring a financial loss on an "investment" is not necessarily illegal. After all, any of us could have made a horrible investment decision.  Rest assured we'll soon hear the ABIM trying to justify their real estate loss because they would have lost this money anyway if they had to pay hotel costs for all of their out-of-town guests and programmers from India eager for a cheap place to stay.

But we should ask ourselves now with the sale of this condominium, what was illegal at the ABIM Foundation? Anything?

Tax Fraud

First, recall that Dr. Baron claimed in my communications with him that much of the condominium expenses they claimed on their tax forms as program service expenses was actually a depreciation expense they lumped into the "program services expenses" of the condominium. Yet the ABIM and their accountants never claimed depreciation under the separate line item on their federal IRS Form 990 for this expense.

Honest mistake?

Unlikely. After all, other tax filing discrepancies with the ABIM Foundation have occurred repeatedly and systematically over many years. Any credible accounting audit should have disclosed most of them.

For instance, surely someone at the ABIM knew the difference between the two states of Iowa and Pennsylvania, didn't they? So why was the ABIM Foundation domicile claimed as Iowa for years when, in fact, it was domiciled in Pennsylvania but never disclosed? And isn't it striking that the ABIM Foundation was claimed for years as being formed in 1999 until this blog disclosed that it was actually created in 1989, some ten years earlier? Only in its most recent tax filings has that little "oversight" miraculously been corrected without explanation to the Internal Revenue Service.

And why didn't the ABIM disclose that it was lobbying Congress on its tax forms when it had been doing so for years? Was this merely a mistake? Or was it because the ABIM and their Foundation would have opened themselves up to closer scrutiny and lost their tax-exempt status if they had?

Unethical Research Practices

Finally, we have to ask ourselves just what kind of research on physicians for the betterment of health care requires a $2.3 million condominium? After all, the ABIM Foundation has always heavily touted their research work and publications.

Some may argue there wasn't "research" being conducted at the ABIM Foundation but rather "quality assurance" or "Quality Improvement" exercises performed there. If so, then why did the ABIM Foundation promote it's pioneering research by using the term at least five times on a single web page in May of 2007?

Archived Screen May 2007 - ABIM Foundation
(Click image to enlarge)

We also find that the ABIM funded "various research projects" at its Foundation in the fiscal year 2008 with the transfer of $6,000,000 of ABIM diplomat fees:

Evidence of ABIM Funding "research projects" at the ABIM Foundation
for $6 million in Fiscal Year 2008
(Click image to enlarge)

There is no escaping the fact that this was a very serious effort at conducting "research" on physicians.

Or not.

Was the whole "research" story told by the ABIM and ABIM Foundation just a front for other activities? I wish to bring my reader's attention that the ABIM Foundation no longer has the word "research" appear anywhere on its website. Instead, there are only words like "Medical Professionalism Charter," "Initiatives," "Grants" and "Choosing Wisely®." The cover-up continues.

Credentialing of physicians involves human testing. As such, it appears the ABIM Foundation unilaterally decided to perform research on physicians without informed consent, without an impartial Investigational Review Board, and without a clear research hypothesis, method, or analysis of the harms they might cause.

"Research" conducted in such a manner is dangerous for many reasons and some of the most egregious examples of dangerous research have happened in government agencies or when the individual or collective social beliefs or dogma were imposed on others as justification for "research."

The Nuremberg Doctrine which rose from the World War II war crimes is very clear in its requirements for human subject research, especially as it pertains to proper consent. From my recently conducted bi-annual CITI Training:

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity."

It goes without saying that human subject research that involves real estate investment strategies to fund research on practicing physicians is unethical (at least) and likely highly illegal. As we have seen, the MOC recertification program can cause significant harm to physicians, their patients, and their families, especially when this credential is tied to physician employment and remuneration. Worse still, the average failure rate of the unproven "Maintenance of Certification" re-certification metric has averaged 13.2% over the past 10 years with wide year-to-year volatility in pass rates using an inconsistent metric. Was the impact of funneling money from the ABIM to the ABIM Foundation for the ABIM Foundation's "research" really that harmful?

Absolutely.

But this story isn't about a condominium or its sale, is it? It's about the wholesale sell-out by some in Organized Medicine that have systematically and repeatedly turned their back on their fellow practicing physicians and the doctor-patient relationship for their own political and financial benefit. For this story is not just restricted to the ABIM or its Foundation. This story extends to all member organizations of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) that tie the ABMS Board certification credential to medical training program directors, lab certifications, and a host of other regulatory traps, too. So it should come as a surprise to no one that we find more recently that each of these organizations appears to have been complicit with the ABIM Foundation moving funds derived from practicing physicians' "research" fees offshore.

In the end, the entire American Board of Medical Specialties' Maintenance of Certification® story has alway been about making money for their coffers at the expense of practicing physicians, irrespective of the specialty.

Always has been and always will be.

It's NEVER been about "Choosing Wisely®."

-Wes

Pennsylvania Medical Society Spearheads Effort to End MOC Nationwide

Recently, the Pennsylvania Medical Society sent this letter to the executive vice presidents of all US state medical societies and many specialty societies regarding their vote of no confidence regarding the ABMS Maintenance of Certification® (MOC®) program and the current leadership at ABIM, stating specifically:

"... We believe that their current leadership is not capable of reforming the process in a timely, academically meaningful, and fiscally responsible way.

In keeping with the consensus of our members and physicians across the country, we call for the immediate replacement of the entire ABIM Board of Directors and leadership with new leadership, representative of physicians actively participating in the full-time practice of clinical medicine. The undersigned organizations would further offer to assist the ABIM and any of the ABIM subspecialties with the formation and transition to a new Board that is representative of and accountable to the physicians whom they will certify. ..."

For those interested in learning more or who's state is ready to sign on can email Dr. Scott Shapiro, President of the PA Medical Society at stat@pamedsoc.org‎ for more information.

Please forward a copy of this letter to all of your practicing physician colleagues (irrespective of specialty) and ask each of them to contact the leadership of their respective state medical societies and specialty societies to urge them to co-sign this letter and work with the PA Medical Society to end the corrupt ABMS MOC® re-certification requirement.

Only through aggressive, meaningful, nationwide collective action against this needless, unaccountable, expensive, and coercive ABMS re-certification program will practicing physicians restore sanity to our own life-long continuing medical education process.

Thank you-

-Wes

A copy of the letter to circulate to your colleagues can be downloaded here.

ACGME Announces New Affiliation with ABMS

PRNewswire - (Chicago) July 1, 2016 - Today, the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) announced a new affiliation with the American Board of Medical Stenographers (ABMS), promising new efficiencies and reduced medical transcription errors within the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). "Ever since the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 1999 report entitled "To Err is Human" that claimed as many as 98,000 patient deaths as a result of medical errors, we've been looking for ways to reduce medical errors in today's hospitals and clinics," said Joseph Throckmorton, MD, President and CEO of the ACGME. "The public has been asking for a way to certify all US physician's typing skills to assure the highest standards of patient care quality and safety," he said.

As part of this program, the ABMS has instituted a Maintenance of Typical Skills® (MOTS®) program using a simple online typing test performed each month in the convenience of the physician's own home or via his or her mobile device. Test scores will be verified and uploaded to the ABMS CertificationMatters website for public review. The cost for physicians will be nominal - only $25 per month. Typing speed and error toleranance levels will be determined by the Board and subject to change. Physicians who fail the test can retake it twice before they must re-register to maintain their credential. A Pledge of Honesty is required of all participants.

"The importance of such a credential comes at a time when self-regulation of our profession is more important than ever," said Imso Boring, MD, JD, President and CEO of the ABMS. "We're proud we could play a part in the harmonization of this important patient care metric with other critical patient care quality and safety initiatives promoted by the ACGME."

Existing members of the ACGME include the American Board of Medical Specialties, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Council of Medical Specialty Socities, the American Osteopathic Association, and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.

It is currently estimated that EMR typographical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States.

* * *

 

Hope all my faithful readers have a happy and healthy 4th of July.

 

-Wes

ABIM's Bedfellows

Right now, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has a comment period that extends through 27 Jun 2016 regarding MACRA, the new payment scheme created by the health care industry, to pay physicians on the front line of health care. I encourage every physicians to voice their  opinion about this plan,

Before you do, however, I'd like to remind you of the recent indifference by the AMA regarding the House of Delegates overwhelming vote to end Maintenance of Certification last Monday.  Needless to say, there's a reason why.

Remember those conflicts of interest with Christine Cassel, MD, former President and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and, later, the National Quality Forum, the ABIM, and ABMS?  Remember the huge splash the announcement of those conflicts had when her conflicts were disclosed by Propublica, and Dr. Cassel quickly relinquished her ties to Premier and Kaiser Health Plan and Hospitals? Remember how Christine Cassel, MD pocketed a cool $230,000 ($100,000 of which was in Premier securities) just before Premier, Inc purchased CECity for $400 million?

Here's the image on the front page of the CECity website:

(Click to enlarge)

Look at all of the friends of the ABIM who welcome CECity's services: Johns Hopkins Medicine, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), Merck, the American Medical Association (AMA), Aetna, The American College of Physicians (ACP), Premier, the ABIM, NextGen, Athenahealth, and Optum. These are just a few of ABIM's corporate bedfellows. The AMA has no interest in what doctors really want or need.  The AMA has no interest in ethics or what's best for patients.

The AMA and the ABIM only have interest in what's best for the AMA and the ABIM.

This is why the ABIM wants physicians to do Maintenance of Certification and enter all their demographic and survey data into the ABIM's database. It has nothing to do with maintaining physician skills but has everything to do with medicine's new digital party.

This is why physicians must act collectively to stop the tax fraud, violations of research ethics, and abuse of our civil rights that has occurred at the ABIM and the ABMS. Because like it or not, you're paying to have your right to practice medicine independently corrupted by these organizations that stand to earn billions from your work while being simultaneously coerced into paying ABIM's fees.

-Wes

Medical Specialty Certification in the US - A False Idol?

For the first time, the history of the ABMS/ABIM board re-certification corruption scandal has reached a peer reviewed medical journal, the Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. I hope practicing physicians here (and others worldwide) take time to read the history and evolution of board certification in the US reviewed in the article and to review the associated references. 

I would like to thank my co-author, Edward J. Schloss, MD (Twitter: @EJSMD) for his contributions to this work and the many helpful editorial suggestions made by the JICE reviewers.

It is time we reconsider the ABMS "Maintenance of Certification" (MOC) program. It is also time to have an independent audit of the financials from 1989 to 2016 from the American Board of Internal Medicine and its Foundation, including full disclosure of the many financial conflicts of interest within the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), the ABIM Foundation, and each of the 24-member boards that comprise the American Board of Medical Specialties. Finally, a full investigation of misleading tax filings and lobbying disclosures of the ABIM as a public tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation by the IRS and Department of Justice is long overdue in light of these revelations.

-Wes

Reference:
Fisher WG and Schloss EJ. Medical Specialty Certification in the United States - A False Idol? J Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology doi: 10.1007/s10840-016-0119-4 Mar 8, 2016.

Spotlight

I didn't watch the Academy Awards last night, but I had seen the movie "Spotlight." It's an inspirational movie that chronicles the efforts of the investigative journalism team by the same name at the Boston Globe that broke the worldwide Catholic priest child-molestation cover-up story. If you haven't seen it, you should.

Earlier this morning I learned that "Spotlight" won the "Best Picture" award at the Academy Awards, much to the disappointment of the bear attack fans. But as one who has dipped his toe into the art of investigative journalism for the past three years as an amateur, I found the appreciation of the film's message reassuring in today's click-through culture. Being an investigative journalist is not only difficult, but also frightening at times, both professionally and personally. As the movie nicely documents, the revelations of corruption can shake closely-held narratives of decency and trust so critical to important societal institutions.  The movie also nicely portrays how difficult it is to fact-check, obtain evidence, and clearly document the story to both gain credibility and affect change. Unfortunately, classic investigative journalism has fallen victim to increasingly limited funding and a world with a shorter and shorter information attention span.

I fear the story of the financial cover-up at the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) is quickly falling victim to similar pressures. With the exception of one veteran news reporter at Newsweek, Kurt Eichenwald (see here, here, here, and here), few journalists have had the interest, patience, or fortitude to expose the truth of the multi-million dollar US physician specialty Board certification racket. Perhaps, like the thought of priests caught molesting children, the thought a non-practicing physician cartel extorting high fees from their colleagues for their personal and political gain is too uncomfortable to accept. Perhaps it is too hard for patients to believe that board re-certification is not about assuring their safety, but rather for little more than money and power. But for working U.S. physicians who are still strong-armed into paying into the ABMS cartel every ten years just so they can continue to do the job they love, this coercion is all too real.

Last October, I had hoped this story would be different.  I was interviewed for over an hour and a half by a reporter from CNBC at my hospital who was investigating the ABMS board certification monopoly. I was told she also interviewed Richard Baron, MD of the ABIM and Lois Nora, MD, JD, of the American Board of Medical Specialties. I spent over an hour in the interview, had a cameraman shoot shots in of my office with its board certificates, and introduced the reporter to one of my patients (with permission given my the patient first) under the watchful eye of my hospital's PR department. "Finally!" I thought.

But the story never aired. I called and inquired. It was an on again, off again affair, buffeted by more compelling stories of the day, I was told. Then, "we've decided to go forward." But now months later, still nothing.

I believe that freedom of the press and careful investigative journalism fills an important role in our society. I still believe the day will come when the truth about the ABIM's actions will be told and thoroughly investigated to end the injustice and waste from the ABMS Board Certification monopoly. Let's hope last night's victory of "Spotlight" as "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards can rekindle main stream media's appreciation for the importance of responsible reporting unencumbered by political and financial pressures.

After all, this isn't Hollywood that we are dealing with, this is real life, real doctors, and real patient care - even yours.

-Wes

Holding the ABIM Accountable

I ask my readers to indulge me as I provide some background about the strongman tactics used by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to protect their board certification monopoly.

It started with a press release sent by the ABIM dated 9 June 2010, resulting in a story by Katherine Hobson making national headlines in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Medical Board Says MDs Cheated." Ms. Hobson also cross-posted her story on the Wall Street Journal's Health Care blog which she helped moderate at the time.

With this article, the public learned that five physicians, Monica Mukherjee of Washington, D.C.; Anastassia Todor of Aurora, CO.; Pedam Salehi of Los Angeles, CA; Sarah Von Muller of Tulsa, OK and Frederick Oni of Warner Robins, GA were sued by the ABIM "for what it deemed were ethical breaches involving the disclosure of test questions—which aren't supposed to be repeated, copied or reproduced." Another 134 physicians were "sanctioned" by having their Board certification revoked for at least a year, and thousands more were sent "letters of reprimand." Labeled as an "unprecedented action," the sanctions were "immediate" and resulted in the revocation of these physicians' Board certification for at least a year or more without trial. Hiding behind the legalistic  "Pledge of Honesty" that physicians have no choice but to sign when they enroll in the ABIM certification program, Dr. Christine Cassel, president and chief executive of the ABIM at the time, called the sanctions "a message and a deterrent."

It's was also an unprecedented strongman tactic by a self-appointed and unaccountable non-profit corporation. Should the entire unaccountable American Board of Medical Specialties and their 24-member boards be allowed to  intimidate, threaten, and professionally destroy physicians to protect their financial stranglehold on their own version of professional certification?

To those in their isolated executive perches, it seems they feel they can. And so, the story does not end there.

Using undisclosed methods and personnel, it seems the ABIM traced emails from a computer seized from Arora Board Review to a physician in Puerto Rico four years later. In a letter dated May 8, 2012, from Ms. Lynn Landon, Chief Operating Officer of the ABIM, Jaime Antonio Salas-Rushford, MD, was accused of sharing board review questions with the Arora Board Review course. On the sidebar of that letter were other names: Chair Catherine R Lucey, MD, Chair-Elect Robert M Wachter, MD, Secretary-Treasurer Talmadge E King, MD, President and CEO Christine Cassel, MD, Chief Information Officer John K Davis II,  MBA, Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer Eric S. Holmboe, MD among others.  With only 10 days notice, the ABIM imposed its harshest penalty: to "indefinitely revoke" Dr. Salas Rushford's Board certification and "notify the Medical Board in every jurisdiction you are licensed." The ABIM then sued Dr. Salas-Rushford for alleged  Copyright infringement.

What the ABIM had not anticipated is that Dr. Salas-Rushford's parents are lawyers and they countersued the ABIM.  Currently, the case has moved from Puerto Rico back to New Jersey and continues in its discovery phase. Lawyers from one of the largest law firms in Philadelphia, Ballard Spahr LLP, are representing the ABIM - all paid for by millions of dollars of practicing physician testing fees.

As you can imagine, the legal fees for Dr. Salas-Rushford's defense are significant. Last evening, a website (doctorsjustice.com) went live to help crowdsource Dr. Salas-Rushford's legal costs. The website contains more about Dr. Salas-Rushford and copies of documents important to his case (including the Langdon letter and the ABIM's final sanction determination). I encourage everyone to review his information carefully.

Given what we know about the ABIM's recent actions, the secret funneling of funds from the ABIM to the ABIM Foundation from 1989 to 1999 to define their version of "medical professionalism," the use of physician testing fees for luxury condominium purchases, the concerning undisclosed conflicts of interest within the leadership of the ABIM (see here and here),  the revolving-door collusion between CMS and the National Quality Forum, the undisclosed political lobbying of this tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, their strongman tactics, and their propensity to advertise their self-determined sanctions to mainstream media before due process, it is time practicing physicians demand justice and a full investigation into the ABIM's methods of securing their lucrative physician "quality cartel."

Dr. Salas-Rushford's suit against the ABIM promises to shine a very bright light on the practices of the ABIM whether his case is upheld or not. For that reason, I encourage all practicing physicians, irrespective of specialty, to donate in whatever way you can - $5 or $500 - to his legal fund. You can also help by sharing his website and encouraging others to do the same.

It's time for practicing physicians everywhere to hold the ABIM accountable.

-Wes

The ABIM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Controversy a Year Later

It has been one year since the story of the ABIM Foundation, Choosing Wisely, and the $2.3 million Condominium appeared on this blog. It has been one year without answers to the many financial, conflicts of interest, and likely illegal tax dealings of the American Board of Internal Medicine discussed within this blog's pages.

But as this story has unfolded, it is clear that this story is much more than a story of the purchase of a luxury condominium by a little known non-profit organization. It has been the story of betrayal of the entire practicing physician community in the United States and their patients everywhere in the name of self-serving power and greed by a relatively select few.

The story is also an embarrassing demonstration of the inability of our professional medical societies to deal forthrightly and honestly with all that has transpired. The vast network of the interconnected medical Specialty Board System led by the American Board of Medical Specialties in the United States that earns hundreds of millions of dollars annually from physician testing fees is incredibly wasteful and counterproductive. Instead of honest examination and disclosure of the facts, the ongoing deception, double-speak, and cover-ups of this system continues.

To date this story has also been about the failure of our legal, government, and law enforcement agencies to investigate the secret financial and tax filing discrepancies of the American Board of Internal Medicine and the ABIM Foundation. This has created a colossal erosion of physicians' trust with our US medical regulatory agencies, especially when doctors can't trust these agencies to protect them from fraud and abuse.

Why the lack of governmental investigation into over $70 million of physician testing fees that were secretly funneled from working physicians (preoccupied with the real work of patient care) into a shadow "Foundation" hellbent on making shady investments and enriching its leadership? The wanton disregard of the basic tenets of law and a civil society displayed by the ABIM is an anathema to honest physicians. Most physicians would prefer to believe that we do not work in an environment that rewards deception, theft, and greed. Yet here we are.

Finally, with the notable exception of a veteran Newsweek reporter, Kurt Eichenwald (see here, here, here, and here) and the tireless efforts of a single forensic accountant, Mr. Charles P. Kroll with whom I have had the pleasure to meet, there has been precious little true investigative reporting into the financial and anti-trust activities of the ABMS and their member boards by major outlets of main stream media. "It's a doctor problem" or "it's too complicated," I've been told. Is that the reason?

We'll see.

One thing's for sure: there's a lot of money at stake in the testing and control of practicing physicians and it is increasingly clear that these organizations (and even some segments of government for which they now work) won't open up willingly or relinquish their lucrative MOC re-certification program without a fight. They know they simply can't afford to maintain their current ways without it.

Getting It Wrong Again

Because of this reality of cover-up and backed by remarkable hubris and ego, the ABIM leadership appears to have made a more recent critical error - another little thing it appears they got "wrong." The ABIM decided to track down and hunt a young physician attendee of the Arora Board Review course attended in 2009 using an email that was found on the server at the residence of Dr. Arora and sued him almost five years later. These guys are serious.  It seems maintaining monopoly control of the lucrative board re-certification process using threats and intimidation (aka, The Chicago Way) was just too important to the ABIM.  But what the ABIM didn't expect is that this young man had at least one parent who was a lawyer,  and he sued back. Time wil tell if this brave man dealt the ABIM (already in the midst of their own financial and ethical mess) a potentially mortal blow.

This case is about to get interesting. So interesting, in fact, that it appears the ABIM's legal team will stop at nothing to try confuse and deceive the judge or magistrate who will soon hear oral arguments in late January 2016 about the case.

Perhaps then the truth will come out: all of the facts of the business of testing physicians; all of the tactics used to bully physicians into compliance with the ABIM MOC program; everything laid bare.

For this story is similar to the disturbing story of a subcontracting security firm that works with Pearson (a company reviewed earlier on this blog) and paid by the state of New Jersey that has been spying on children to protect their monopoly interest in the content of the national Common Core test. For physicians, it is no coincidence that a different division of Pearson, PearsonVue, is the professional testing division of Pearson that the ABIM uses to secure its examinations and cherished test questions.

When the facts come to light about the spying, the tracking, the hunting of physicians by an organization profiting handsomely from intimidation and thuggery, it will be hard for the ABIM and its Foundation to survive. So, too, the basic construct of the ABMS and our entire professional specialty board system.

It is increasingly clear that the ABMS MOC program is about threats and intimidation so people can enrich themselves selling unproven quality data to unwitting customers, and little more.  Physician education, if it happens, is really secondary. Is this what the physicians need from these sheltered and unaccountable non-profit organizations? How much time, energy, and money have we already wasted and turned from the delivery of health care with this program?  How many physicians' lives has the current system in its perverted construct ruined?

When all of the facts of the MOC program become known, maybe, just maybe, the ongoing fleecing of US physicians by the corrupt and misguided ABMS MOC progam and the irresponsible Code of Silence held by their subordinate member boards will end and our profession can get back to doing what its meant to do: treat patients.

One can only hope.

-Wes

PS: By the way, today in history on December 16, 1773, the Boston Tea Party took place.
Seems apropos, doesn't it?