• Revenue Cycle Management
  • COVID-19
  • Reimbursement
  • Diabetes Awareness Month
  • Risk Management
  • Patient Retention
  • Staffing
  • Medical Economics® 100th Anniversary
  • Coding and documentation
  • Business of Endocrinology
  • Telehealth
  • Physicians Financial News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cardiovascular Clinical Consult
  • Locum Tenens, brought to you by LocumLife®
  • Weight Management
  • Business of Women's Health
  • Practice Efficiency
  • Finance and Wealth
  • EHRs
  • Remote Patient Monitoring
  • Sponsored Webinars
  • Medical Technology
  • Billing and collections
  • Acute Pain Management
  • Exclusive Content
  • Value-based Care
  • Business of Pediatrics
  • Concierge Medicine 2.0 by Castle Connolly Private Health Partners
  • Practice Growth
  • Concierge Medicine
  • Business of Cardiology
  • Implementing the Topcon Ocular Telehealth Platform
  • Malpractice
  • Influenza
  • Sexual Health
  • Chronic Conditions
  • Technology
  • Legal and Policy
  • Money
  • Opinion
  • Vaccines
  • Practice Management
  • Patient Relations
  • Careers

Alternatives to­-and skepticism about-MOC


Readers sound off on MOC and primary care delivery in our latest Your Voice.

In his opinion piece regarding maintenance of certification, (“Maintenance of certification exams have dubious value,” February 10, 2016), James Merino, MD listed major concerns of a wide number of physicians regarding the whole process of board certification. He stated that “The secure examination needs to be a thing of the past, and I hope that others will continue to protest until our voices have been heard.”  

Doctors put MOC on blast

In 2011, the National Board of Clinical Medicine, Inc. (NBCM) was established, in part, to address similar concerns. The NBCM offers an option for physicians with regard to board certification, recertification and maintenance of certification. The format of the NBCM is a one-time, open book, at-home exam whose sources of questions are clearly listed for the physician to review.  Questions are based upon published practice parameters and guidelines that relate to the clinical aspects of medicine. 

Eliminate MOC’s cumbersome process and physicians will get on board

So far, this has been established for allergist/immunologists. We have received overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic support from physicians nationwide. The NBCM is recognized as a positive move with regard to board certification. Specialties other than Allergy and Immunology are welcome to be part of this process.

The NBCM strongly believes that board certification should be a positive process where learning occurs, and it should be voluntary. Physicians should have options regarding board certification. Board certification should be a voluntary process that offers value to the physician. It should not be used to discriminate against physicians with regard to hiring, insurance network participation or hospital staff privileges. 

Maintenance of certification: inside the physician revolt

Medical Economics has been a leader in covering this topic. I am grateful that this magazine continues to offer insight and open discussion with regard to this very important and controversial topic.


Martin S. Dubravec, MD

Cadillac, Michigan

The writer is the founder and chief executive officer
of the National Board of Clinical Medicine, Inc. 

Next: Why the silence?


Blog: MOC, recertifications are ‘cancers’ doctors should rally against

I have followed the entire ABIMMOC controversy from its inception and eventually joined the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons, applauding Dr. Teirstein and others for their dedication to a reasonable board certification process. I wonder when member boards will follow suit. Why the silence?  

How ABMS, other specialty boards are confronting MOC changes

I am involved in the ABOG MOC process, which is very similar. I passed boards in 1994 with flying colors, promised board certification for life, then presto, MOC each year along with its $600-plus price tag this year. Simple math reveals tens of millions of dollars a year to fund an organization that lends little to no contribution to professional development for practicing clinicians. 


Roger Brecheen, MD 

Next: Physician extenders should be part of primary care delivery  


Physician extenders should be part of primary care delivery 

I can understand Lee Morgentaler, MD’s concerns about “physician extenders” working in a capacity traditionally reserved for doctors. (“Physician extenders are not the same as doctors,” November 25, 2015.) 

However, primary care has changed over the past few decades, and in most areas of the country primary care doctors’ roles have changed immensely. They are no longer the “do it all” doctors. Many no longer take care of hospital or nursing home patients. Others have limited their practices to only adult medicine but there are other changes as well.

The rapid advances in medicine, the regulations of insurers, and the threat of lawsuits all play a role. In additions many primary care doctors want more free time for family and for personal pursuits.

The point is that if physician assistants and nurse practitioners (PAs and NPs) practice within the limits of their training and abilities as recommended by the Institute of Medicine, they could and should join the primary care workforce.

The shortage of primary care doctors is acute and many are overworked and burned out. Nurse practitioners have already gained licensing rights to practice independently. Clearly they have an important role to play in providing primary care.


Edward Volpintesta, MD

Bethel, Connecticut

Related Videos