Page 9 - Delaware Medical Journal - May 2017
P. 9
PRESIDENT’S PAGE
PRAYUS TAILOR, MD
MSD President Prayus Tailor, MD is a Nephrologist who practices with Nephrology Associates in Newark and Wilmington.
MOC and the Path Forward
T (MOC) program through the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the controversial and trademarked bitter pill that physicians have been forced to swallow for the last two decades, has been front and center on the legislative agenda of many medical societies across the country. Physician’s discontent with ABMS’ MOC process
is no secret. A nationwide online study which surveyed almost 1,000 physicians reveals that only 24 percent of physicians agreed that MOC activities are relevant
to their patients and 15 percent felt they are worth the time and effort. The survey showed 81 percent of physicians believed the MOC activities were a burden.1
The same is true in Delaware. The Medical Society of Delaware (MSD) conducted a survey of its membership
on their experience with the MOC process in the summer of 2016. There were
172 respondents to our request prior to the survey closing. The following are some highlights of the response results:
• 70 percent currently participate in the MOC process, while 11 percent do not; 15 percent have been granted a lifetime
• Of those participating in MOC,
87 percent do so through the American Board of Medical Specialties and
4 percent through the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons.
• 85 percent did not think the MOC process improved their ability to take care of their patients.
• 85 percent did not think the cost of MOC
was acceptable and the same percentage
• 70 percent did not think MOC should be a requirement for hospital staff privileges and 80 percent did not think MOC should be required for insurance payer in-network status.
• 87 percent believe that physicians should have alternative options for maintaining MOC as it pertains to hospital staff privileges and insurance in-network status.2
clear dissatisfaction with the MOC process, which is not surprising given
the national sentiment. Other states
have already taken action to make improvements. Oklahoma has already passed legislation stating that MOC cannot be required as a condition of licensure, hospital staff privileges, or reimbursement from insurance companies. Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, and Michigan have followed suit and either enacted or introduced legislation limiting the use of MOC for these purposes as well.
MOC has been proposed as a way to improve patient care by establishing higher standards for physicians compared to licensure alone. However, there is
little if any data to support this assertion. Furthermore, MOC is not the only means by which to gauge the credibility or effectiveness of a physician. If you were to query patients what matters most when it comes to choosing a doctor, the answer is not “having an ABMS MOC participating doctor.” A cross-sectional descriptive study of adult volunteers who
Del Med J | May 2017 | Vol. 89 | No. 5
137
