ABIM Stumbles in Appellate Court Arguments

The oral arguments in the appeal of the dismissal at the District Court level of the Kenney et al vs American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) class action antitrust, RICO, and unjust enrichment case were heard before the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals today and are available via audio file here. The following interchange starting at 32:58 in the audio file was interesting (I have added a few personal comments/thoughts in italics):

Judge: "Could I just ask the follow-up there about forcing? How do we conclude that internists aren't forced to buy MOC at this stage in the litigation in light of the allegations that internists can't successfully practice without certification? Isn't the feasibility of practicing without certification ultimately a question of fact?"

ABIM Attorney: "I think you can first look to, um, look to the facts in this case. For instance, Dr. Manolo who, who never, who did purchase initial certification and never purchased Maintenance of Certification. I think that certainly shows that his purchase of initial certification was not contingent on the later purchase of Maintenance of Certification. (Comment: It also shows there are two products). So I think that is one way you can look at it. I think you can also look at it in the way that the Second Circuit indicated in the Smugglers Notch Homeowner's case which is a case where, which looked at, when you're entering in to the transaction and you know that, in fact, you're that going to be required, there are certain components, parts, of that entire transaction, and you know that up front, and you voluntarily nonetheless enter into that contract, that there is no forcing." 

Judge: "But counselor, what I'm talking about is it might not be so voluntary - they want to make a living, are they forced to buy your product? You seem to say no they're not forced to, but is that essentially an issue of fact more appropriate for summary judgement?"

ABIM Attorney: "Um, I would suggest not because I think when courts look to forcing they look at what is the situation at the time of the initial purchase? At the time of the initial purchase here ABIM had a program for certification and aspects of that program were initially passing the initial board certification exam and that that certification would expire after a set period of time - ten years - without unless diplomate passed subsequent examinations. And so when they, up front, bought that product they knew there would be a continuing obligation as part of the certification program, that they would have to demonstrate, in fact, that they possess the requisite knowledge to hold themselves out and say "Yes, I am ABIM, or board certified." So there is no forcing because there is the knowledge up front at the time of purchase of what certification entails, um, and that was the periodic demonstration of knowledge."

Judge: "But I suppose that the most basic form of your argument is, they don't have to go through ABIM to practice." 

ABIM Attorney: "Yes, your Honor. If you look at the Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint is quite clear that board certification is not required to practice medicine in the United States. That is simply a function of state boards of medicine that license doctors. Um, you only need a license in your state, um, to practice medicine. Board certification is not required. Board certification is more like the "Stamp of Approval" that you can hold yourself out to have special qualifications. (As I have said all along, board certification is actually little more than a marketing accolade.) Some patients and employers look to that, others do not, but it is not a requirement to practice medicine in any state in the United States which is a fact that is pled in the Amended Complaint."

Judge: "But this does go to your market power, I mean, yeah, it's true, you don't need the ABIM certification. But is it really feasible not to have it, in reality? And I think, the allegations, don't they say, a lot of places won't let you practice, your malpractice rates are going to go higher, reimbursement's going to be an issue. So is it really feasible to practice without certification and is that something that should be a subject of discovery as opposed to, you know, at this juncture with a motion to dismiss to resolve?"

ABIM Attorney: "Well. well many, I would submit many internists do, in fact, practice medicine, um, without ABIM certification and there are many things that might affect how much you are paid, what your admitting privileges are - things like where you attended medical school and many other factors. (Comment: And if you believe this, I have some ocean-front property to sell you in Arizona). But it really comes back to, you know, what is at issue in this case and whether, in fact, there is a tying claim and whether or not there is, um, one product or two products and that really goes back to the Supreme Court test in Jefferson Parish about the character of demand and whether there is demand for the tied product in absence of the typing product.  And here, the Appellants want to hold themselves out as being "board certified." There is no separate demand for the tied product in the absence of the tying product. And that is something I think is, is something that, you know, the Court in Jefferson Parish makes clear. Justice O'Connor when she expands on the words in that saying that for products to be treated as distinct, the tied product must, at a minimum, be one that consumers might wish to purchase separately without also purchasing the tying product. And here's.. there's simply... there are no allegations of fact sufficient to move this case along to make a plausible case that there are, in fact, two products here because there is no consumers, there are no allegations showing there is demand to purchase the tied product without also tying the tying product." (Comment: OMG, Seriously?)

Judge: "Alright, thank you counsel."

The judges asked the right questions. Now we have to wait to see if this case is sent back to the District Court for discovery.

I will have additional comments about other aspects of these oral arguments in the days ahead.

-Wes

P.S.: MedpageToday covered the story as well here.

PPS: If you'd like to help the plaintiff's along their lengthy legal quest to improve the lot for all US physicians regarding MOC, please contribute to the GoFundMe page sponsored by Practicing Physicians of America.

With MOC, Will Working Physicians Ever Get Their Day in Court?

For the past seven years, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) member boards have been under fire regarding their trademarked Maintenance of Certification® (MOC) program that shifted lifetime ABMS board certification to a time-limited US physician credential in 1990. 

Physicians have long argued that before 1990, board certification was an independent and generally-accepted assessment of the quality of their post-graduate specialty training. After 1990, however, ABMS board certification became two separate products: (1) an assessment of their post-graduate training and (2) a "continuous professional development"  (CPD) product tied to their original post-graduate training assessment. 

The logic for this two-product theory is simple. Before January 1, 1990, the CPD product was truly voluntary for physicians to perform. But after a trial run of this voluntary testing, fewer and fewer physicians opted to participate in the program in large part because of its unproven value and expense. To counter the declining enrollment, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) "Task Force" (and eventually all other ABMS member boards) decided to tie participation in the ABMS CPD product to the validity of a physician's initial assessment of their post-graduate training:

"Thus, the stage was set for the Board to embark on a new era in which its diplomates would be asked, but not required, to renew the validity of their certificates at periodic intervals or face the uncertain circumstances of loss of their status as certified internists, subspecialists, or holders of certificates of added qualifications."(1)

It didn't matter if a physician had participated in other self-directed Continuing Medical Education (CME) on their own accord; unless a physician performed the ABMS-sanctioned CPD program, they would lose their original ABMS board certification credential and the privileges that credential imparts to physicians in terms of academic, professional, and economic value.

This tie between a physician's original post-graduate assessment and lifelong continuous professional development proved remarkably lucrative for the ABMS and their member boards. So much so, that the ABMS CPD program was later trademarked as "Maintenance of Certification®" (MOC®) and had its own profit line on ABMS member board tax forms. The tie was so lucrative, in fact, that the largest member board, the ABIM, created an undisclosed shadow organization, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation (later renamed the ABIM Foundation) and secretly funneled tens of millions of dollars for nearly ten years without disclosing its existence to physicians and the public and purchased a $2.3 million condominium for themselves. After its public debut online in 1999, the ABIM Foundation later off-shored millions of those funds to the Cayman Islands in 2015. 

Is it any wonder that physicians would be upset?

Yet here we are.

So far, the ABMS member boards have had exceptionally good fortune protecting their MOC® product in court, arguing before various district court judges that ABMS board certification is not two products that are illegally tied, but rather just one big "board certification" product.  

Last week was no exception. The long-running lawsuit filed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) suit against the ABMS was dismissed with prejudice.  In addition, the antitrust suit field by two psychiatrists against the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) was similarly dismissed (along the same legal lines of the ABIM and ABR lawsuits) but WITHOUT prejudice. (The judge left room here for the original Complaint to be amended - perhaps because the ABR lawsuit was later amended and has been fully briefed but not yet decided). 

It is interesting to this observer that there has been little fanfare in the media regarding these last two rulings in favor of the ABMS member boards. I suspect the ABMS and their associated specialty boards know that all eyes are on the ABIM antitrust lawsuit appeal recently filed. That appeal explains the two-product tie created by the ABIM clearly. Perhaps they'd rather not bring attention to that case that's due for oral arguments on the 23rd of October. So much hinges on the outcome of that case for both them and working physicians.

Irrespective of the cases outcome, however, the credibility and value of ABMS board certification has been tarnished forever. Given the revelation of the conflicts of interests and lucrative nature of ABMS board certification, rhe only way the ABMS brand could redeem itself is for a full accounting of all that has transpired against working physicians by these self-appointed non-representative academic physicians and the non-physicians corporate directors now at the helm of these lucrative ABMS specialty boards.

-Wes

(1) Richard J. Glassock, MD, John A. Benson, MD, Robert B. Copeland, MD, Herman A. Godwin, MD, et al. Time-Limited Certification and Recertification: The Program of the American Board of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-114-1-59

P.S.: Working physicians are still encouraged to support these important ongoing legal battles by contributing to the GoFundMe page sponsored by Practicing Physicians of America.

Physician Plaintiffs File Reply Brief Against ABIM

The four Internal Medicine physician Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their latest Reply Brief in the class action lawsuit against the American Board of internal Medicine (ABIM) today. That reply brief summarized the alleged tying arrangement of ABIM board certification to "Maintenance of Certification (MOC)":

"ABIM’s monopoly power over certifications is undisputed. Certifications are an economic necessity for a successful medical practice. From 1936 to today ABIM certifications have assessed one thing: postgraduate medical education. 

Realizing that only so much in certification fees can be extracted from new residency graduates, MOC allows ABIM not only to charge internists a one-time certification fee at the outset of their practice, but to force internists to purchase MOC by revoking their “initial” certifications if they do not, requiring them to pay inflated MOC fees throughout their entire decades-long careers. The two products are separate because, in ABIM’s own words, MOC “means something different” from certifications and “speaks to the question of whether or not an internist is staying current.” (¶ 53). MOC’s true purpose, however, is to create a lucrative revenue stream for ABIM, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in new fees. (¶ 65). 

There are other products—not sold by ABIM—that help internists stay current, including continuing medical education products (“CME”). (¶ 54 (“MOC serves substantially the same function as CME”)).1 

MOC is ABIM’s fourth attempt to sell a product distinct from certifications to help keep internists current. Thousands of internists bought three previous voluntary MOC products separately from their certifications as part of ABIM’s Continuous Professional Development Program (“CPD”). (¶ 25). “Grandfathers” today also purchase MOC separately from their certifications. (¶ 35). Purchases by internists of MOC, CME, and other non-ABIM CPD products to stay current, demonstrate distinct demand for those products separate from the demand for certifications. ABIM’s earlier versions of MOC failed to generate the hoped-for revenue because ABIM did not revoke certifications of internists who did not buy them. That ABIM’s voluntary products were unsuccessful reflected internists’ preferences to buy products from others to stay current. (¶ 55). ABIM ensured, however, that MOC succeeded by tying it to “initial” certifications and making it mandatory. (emphasis mine) Plaintiffs’ claims do not threaten ABIM “standards” any more than ABIM’s earlier voluntary MOC products did. Plaintiffs ask only that ABIM’s illegal tie be severed and that MOC once again be voluntary."

In addition, the filed brief explains the basis of the RICO claims made by the physician Plaintiff-Appellants against the ABIM: 

"After ABIM was unable to generate hoped-for fees from its first three voluntary MOC products sold as part of its CPD Program, it realized it must force internists to buy MOC. ABIM did so by revoking the certifications of internists who did not buy MOC. In furtherance of its scheme, ABIM waged a campaign of fraudulent misrepresentations to deceive the public, including but not limited to hospitals and related entities, insurance companies, medical corporations and other employers, and the media, that MOC, among other things, benefits physicians, patients and the public and improves patient outcomes. As a result, ABIM has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in MOC fees under false pretenses."

Finally, in regard to the unjust enrichment claim dismissed by the earlier District Court judge:

"The district court’s sole rationale for dismissing Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims is its conclusion that ABIM “did not ‘force’ Plaintiffs to purchase MOC.” A-41. ABIM similarly repeats its argument that internists “chose” to “pursue and maintain their certifications.” ABIM Br. 54. Plaintiffs have already debunked this argument, and clearly allege “forcing” notwithstanding the erroneous conclusions and arguments of the district court and ABIM. 

ABIM points out that certifications are not required for licensure. But it does not deny certifications are required for admitting privileges, insurance, and other requirements of a successful medical practice, and accordingly are an economic necessity. Finally, the district court opinion in In re Avandia Mtkg., No. 2007-MDL-1871, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152726 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2013), does not support ABIM, as the unjust enrichment claim there failed for several reasons not pertinent here, most importantly because, unlike MOC, the purchases were voluntary. See ABIM Br. 55-56."

With this filing, it is clear that the class action lawsuit filed by working physicians against the ABIM is far from over. Read the whole Reply Brief here. 

-Wes

To support the physician plaintiffs in this ongoing lawsuit, consider contributing to their GoFundMe page.

Just In Time for Christmas: The MOC Legal Juggernaut Intensifies

With the recent back-to-back announcements that the class action antitrust and racketeering lawsuit against the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and the antitrust lawsuit against the American Board of Radiology were dismissed (e.g., the ABIM announcement and ABR announcement), doctors everywhere - both young and old - seemed resigned to the fact that they will have to be subjects to lifelong extortion of private American Board of Medical Specialties member boards and their affiliates if they wanted to practice medicine in the United States.

But fear not, dear colleagues. I bring you tidings of great joy. The first great Supplemental Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit against the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) was filed yesterday that promises to renew the call for justice on the basis of proper legal procedural grounds:

Defendant American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (“ABPN”) illegally ties its initial certification product, which it sells to new doctors to demonstrate completion of their medical education and assess the quality of their residency program, and its MOC product, which it requires some older doctors, but not all, to purchase throughout their careers to demonstrate lifetime learning or forfeit their initial certification. ABPN brings to the court’s attention Kenney v. American Board of Internal Medicine, No. 18-5260, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164725 (E.D. Pa.Sept. 26, 2019) (“Kenney”), and Siva v. American Board of Radiology, No. 19 C 1407, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200645 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2019) (“Siva”). Kenney came first, followed by Siva which “agree[d] with the reasoning in Kenney.” Id. at *11.¹

Nothing in those opinions changes ABPN’s unlawful conduct. A critical reading of the opinions and application of the universally accepted rule that well-pleaded factual allegations and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be taken as true compels the conclusion that Kenney and Siva were, respectfully, wrongly decided.

¹  The tying claims in Kenney were dismissed with prejudice without plaintiffs being allowed to amend, the court finding as a matter of law that separate products could never be alleged. Plaintiffs are appealing that ruling. The claims in Siva were dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff is filing an amended complaint on January 10, 2020.

The supplemental opposition to the ABPN motion to dismiss then outlines multiple legal reasons why the plaintiffs believe the decisions were wrongly decided. In essence, the attorneys are arguing that the facts in this case were not even allowed to be considered past the judges' chambers.

We can anticipate that the multitude of moneyed interests behind Maintenance of Certification will stop at nothing to assure this unlawful program continues unchecked.

Still, a bit of hope and cheer is always welcome for working physicians this time of year.

Merry Christmas!

-Wes

P.S.: On a separate legal note:

Remember the Puerto Rican physician, Jaime Salas Rushford, MD, whom the ABIM revoked his board certification and dragged him through the court system since 2012 with a dismissed time-barred cheating claim while the President and CEO of the ABIM simultaneously failed to disclose her conflicts of interest with Kaiser and Premier Inc? Yesterday, the judge issued the following order to expedite the counterclaim suit filed against ABIM by Salas Rushford:

The American Board of Internal Medicine may file its motion for judgment on the pleadings no later than December 18, 2019. Dr. Salas-Rushford will respond no later than January 2, 2020. The Board may reply no later than January 9, 2020. The case schedule will be discussed at the scheduling conference to be held on January 31, 2020. Signed by Judge Francisco A. Besosa on 12/11/2019. (brc) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

It seems that case will soon be coming to a head, too.

Readers wishing to support the brave physician plaintiffs involved in these lawsuits trying to end the unlawful Maintenance of Certification program are encouraged to contribute to their GoFundMe campaign.

Plaintiffs to Appeal ABIM Class-Action Lawsuit in Full

With the time to amend the earlier class action antitrust and racketeering lawsuit against the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) past, this statement was issued by C. Phillip Curley, the Plaintiffs' lead attorney:

“Plaintiffs plan to appeal in full the dismissal of their case. While we respect the district court, we believe it was wrong at this early stage of the litigation to dismiss Plaintiff’s case and deprive them of their day in court. Plaintiffs look forward to the vindication of their claims on appeal.”

ABIM may have thought they won this case on dismissal, but it looks the plaintiffs' claims will get a second more critical review of the case with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

-Wes

Physicians wishing to support the plaintiffs in this unprecedented action are encouraged to contribute here.

AntiMOC Lawsuit Update

As the summer winds on, I have been approached by more and more people who would like an update on where the litigation filed against the many member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties stand since the lawsuits were filed. I will do my best to briefly summarize the status of those lawsuits as I understand them. (For background on why these lawsuits have been filed against so many of the American Board of Medical Specialties specialty boards, please review this video).

The antitrust suit against the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) was originally filed 6 Dec 2018 and amended 23 Jan 2019 to include RICO charges, the antitrust lawsuit against the American Board of Radiology was filed 26 Feb 2019, and the antitrust lawsuit against the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) was filed 6 MAR 2019. These cases were filed by a law firm based in Chicago. A fourth lawsuit was filed by a separate law firm in Southern District Court of California on 19 Feb 2019 against the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM), and the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA).

Each of the member boards are represented by different law firms.

Three of the specialty boards (ABIM, ABR, and ABPN) have appeared and, as expected, filed motions to dismiss with mostly overlapping arguments. The motion in the ABIM case was fully briefed a couple of months ago (Motion to Dismiss here, Opposition for Motion Dismiss here), the ABPN motion was fully briefed last month (Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss here, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss here), and the briefing in the ABR case should be finished mid-August.

In the interim, a motion to consolidate the above cases (brought by the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the ABMS/ABEM/ABA case) which the plaintiffs in the ABIM, ABR, and ABPN cases opposed out of the concern that it might delay the cases and add to their cost, was denied. So these three cases (ABR, ABPN, and ABIM) will each continue on their own in the federal courts in Philadelphia (ABIM) and Chicago (ABR and ABPN).

It would not be unusual for the courts to take several months to decide the motions to dismiss, especially given their complexity and importance. Discovery for these cases will begin once the motions to dismiss are decided, which is hoped will be no later than the end of the year. As I am sure many of my readers have already observed, the litigation seems to be having a modest impact, as many specialty boards and specialty societies claim to be re-thinking their Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements, at least around the edges.

It is important that physicians continue to help fund the GoFundMe page sponsored by Practicing Physicians of America. (Remember, short of processing fees, every penny of those contributions will to toward these continuing legal efforts.)

In summary, I believe the legal cases are progressing as well as can be expected and I remain convinced that, together, working physicians CAN end Maintenance of Certification's stranglehold on US physicians nationwide.

-Wes

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