But
indeed he did need to speak out. Though Bob has been a booster of
the ABIM we look to him to provide healthy skepticism. After all he
describes his blog as a series of “Lively and iconoclastic ruminations..” But his
post is hardly iconoclastic concerning the ABIM. From the post:
This
is not to say that the Board has made perfect choices – it hasn’t,
and ABIM’s CEO, Dr. Rich Baron, courageously admitted as much in a
February statement of apology, in which he announced the suspension
of certain parts of the program. But these were mistakes born of
trying to do good but challenging work for the right reason: to
ensure to our patients that their physicians are competent. Painting
the organization – and particularly Rich, one of the finest people
I know – as corrupt and nefarious is wrong.
I
haven't seen much in the way of personal attacks on Dr. Baron and
will accept Bob's statement that he's a great guy. The focus of the
outrage has been, as it should be, about where the ABIM has gone
wrong and the consequences to practicing physicians and, ultimately,
patients.
There's
a lot to unpack from Bob's next paragraph:
Here’s
what’s at stake: we physicians are granted an extraordinary amount
of autonomy by the public and the government.
An
extraordinary amount of autonomy? Really Bob? Decades ago maybe but
not the last time I checked. He goes on:
We
ask people to disrobe in our presence; we prescribe medications that
can kill; we perform procedures that would be labeled as assault if
done by the non-credentialed. If we prove ourselves incapable of
self-governance, we are violating this trust, and society will –
and should – step into the breach with standards and regulations
that will be more onerous, more politically driven, and less informed
by science. That is the road we may be headed down. It is why this
fight matters.
Well,
society has already done just that. And apparently Bob has no
problem with some of the baggage imposed on medicine by politically
driven initiatives not well informed by science, as evidenced, for
example, by his repeated praise of the IOM's egregious spin on
patient safety (you know, the one about how medical errors result in
patient deaths equivalent to a jumbo jet crash a day). I, for one,
do have a problem with such grandstanding and have seen more negative
consequences from the IOM report than benefits, but I digress.
What's really telling in that paragraph is the strongly implied
premise that resuscitation of the Board will help protect patients
against an out of control, incompetent medical profession. That's
apparently why, in his view, this particular fight matters. There's
no evidence, of course, that the MOC program helps patients at all.
To be clear, I wouldn't demand evidence were it not for all the
negative consequences. After all, there is not, and probably never
will be, good evidence concerning regular CME. But the negative
consequences of the MOC program, as it has recently existed, abound.
Much
of the rest of Bob's post was more thoughtful and nuanced, though I
partially disagree with his ideas on the demonstration of competence.
His attempt to offer a defense, point by point, against the various
accusations was unconvincing to me, though it is clear Bob believes
passionately in the Board.
He
makes the point that regulation should come from within the
profession, which was part of the Board's original mission, with
which I heartily agree (that's why I am a tad concerned that he said
they are about to add non-physician members to their governance
structure). And I can't make an argument against doctors having to
take a test now and again (though I remain displeased that the Board
recently told grandfathered diplomats, in effect, concerning that
requirement, Sorry, we lied).
Bob
points out changes that are being made to the process. I, like many
physicians in the community, am skeptical as to whether this will be
enough. I am even skeptical as to whether trust can be restored at
all. The reputation of the ABIM is on a downward trajectory like a
freight train rolling down hill. It is largely, though probably not
entirely, of their own making. I find this unfortunate because I
used to have a good feeling about the Board. Bob concludes with a
valid concern. If the Board meets its demise something worse may
emerge to fill a perceived vacuum.