• 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

Letter to the editor: MOC requirements repeat medical profession's past mistakes


A reader calls maintenance of certification an example of academic medicine exerting control over practicing physicians.

Howard Mandel, MD in his April 10 letter (“ABMS And Other Boards Force MOC On Doctors”) was correct to point out the tyrannical move to force maintenance of certification on the medical profession by the very organization that physicians helped to create almost a hundred years ago. At the time sitting for the boards was ­voluntary. 

But slowly the leadership of the boards has positioned themselves so that certification has become a credential for admission to hospital medical staffs, for medical licensure, and it has been used by medical insurers as an indicator of physician “excellence.” It will not be long before insurers will decrease their payments to physicians who are not certified.

This is another example of the long arm of academia extending its grip over doctors. This also happened after the recommendations of the Flexner Report of 1910 were adopted by medical schools. Flexner lamented that the curricula of the medical schools were too rigid and forced students to march in lock-step, leaving them little time for personal development.

Sir William Osler, one of the founding fathers of Johns Hopkins Hospital, believed the changes overemphasized the science of medicine and trained medical scientists more than medical doctors because of the lack of attention to the social and psychological and personal factors that doctors also need in dealing competently and humanely with their patients.

By its increasingly mandatory status and its punitive pass/fail, MOC repeats the same deplorable “lock-step” defect and narrow-mindedness that followed the recommendations of the Flexner Report of 1910.

Edward Volpintesta, MD

 Bethel, Connecticut

Related Videos
Jennifer N. Lee, MD, FAAFP
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health