Dr. Westby Fisher, a vocal critic of MOC who has been investigating ABMS finances, referred PhysicianSense to this blog post when asked for comment. Fisher argues that public comment on the future of MOC is moot when there is no plan to end MOC outright.Precisely.
You can't negotiate with a Spider when you are forced to be a Fly.
Instead, you have to exterminate the Spider.
Please give generously in support of our four colleagues. It's time to end this abusive MOC nonsense.
(Unless, of course, you want to do unproven, costly forced testing the rest of your career.)
It is plain from this list that MOC is primarily a product of the insurance industry, large fortune companies, and mega hospital systems, that all want to control physicians and cash in. It is becoming clearer why the NCQA (National Committee for Quality Assurance) was conceived and then created by the same parties just prior to 1990. The same time MOC was conceived and propagated by the colluding ABMS umbrella and boards. Pilot programs at some member boards show the early intentions. Just as CertLink® points to making recertification process more consistent for flow of money and control. Pearson, PLC longterm contracts allude to the publishing franchise/monopoly and the testing surveillance industry. There are lists of complex stakeholders that the ABMS is colluding with.
"Commission’s proposed changes to Maintenance of Certification
Some of the proposed MOC changes from the Vision Commission include:
Consistently defining professionalism and professional standing among ABMS boards
Incorporating information from diplomates’ actual clinical practice into assessments
ABMS’ obligation to change certification status when doctors don’t meet standards
Providing clear pathways for doctors to regain certification if standards aren’t met
Collaboration with other CME and CPD groups
Upholding the value of MOC in healthcare
ABMS collaboration with research groups
Continuous quality improvement by the ABMS
ABMS board compliance with ABMS certification and organizational standards
Annual recertification for doctors — not every 5-10 years
Better communication from the ABMS to doctors
Better communication about specialty standards
Making the recertification process more consistent
Eliminate redundancy for doctors certified in multiple specialties"
The media/publishers that physicians rely on are perhaps not unbiased.
Where's the real media coverage for physicians and patients? Why is the public not protected from the MOC scam/Ponzi scheme?
PhysicianSense What is this magazine really? Who owns this publication and what is there agenda? Perhaps a study of one publisher and its corporate web will provide some answers why MOC and the ABMS commission is rigged and the outcome controlled so tightly.
DollarSense, EuroSense, YenSense and YuanSense May Equate to NonSense - Trillion of Reasons Global Fortune/Governments/Insurers/Hospital Systems through proxies Control Physicians and Patients
PhysicianSense What is it really? Who owns this publication and what is there agenda?
Brought you you by MDLinx
A subsidiary of M3 USA
Owned and operated by M3GlobalResearch
With Business Projecct "Studios" in London, England, Gothenberg, Sweeden and Philadelphia, PA (Liberty Square Complex)
With operations conveniiently located in a suburb of Philadelphia (Fort Washington)
"Global Research Sample Used in Two AMA Studies
M3 Global Research was mentioned in two new Policy Research Perspectives by the American Medical Association. The AMA used samples of physicians from M3 Global Research first ISO-certified Healthcare Professional Research Panel in the U.S. and Europe."
A thick sticky web
Lobbying and overly aggressive sales teams helped create MOC.
Why? For billions in profits and control of the market.
The use of buzz words: bad doctor, HIPPA, social media tips bound to invoke fear in the reader.
Post a Comment