Dr. Kenneth DeVault in Philadelphia September 15, 2016
Dr. Kenneth DeVault in Philadelphia September 15, 2016

The College has been fighting for your interests as the debate on MOC gets more intense and opposition to ABIM’s new alternative MOC pathway heats up — not only from the GI societies, but also among all the internal medicine organizations.

Last Thursday, September 15, ACG President Dr. Kenneth R. DeVault traveled to Philadelphia to attend a meeting convened by ACP and AAIM with representatives from ABIM.  Dr. DeVault reaffirmed the College’s commitment to the principles that MOC be must be simpler, less intrusive and less expensive.

The next day, ACG’s representative to ABIM’s Liaison Committee on Certification and Re-Certification (LCCR), Dr. Michael S. Smith, attended a meeting hosted by ABIM at which alternative MOC assessment models structured for either 2-or 5-year intervals were on the agenda.  At this meeting, ACG joined more than 20 other internal medicine societies in unanimous criticism of ABIM’s plans.

ABIM’s Proposed Pathways – Fail as Meaningful Improvement

For the College, this proposal fails to meet our requirements for meaningful improvement based on ACG’s stated principles and the priorities of GI physicians. The College is deeply concerned about the direction of ABIM’s approach to MOC.  We will continue to find ways to improve the situation or explore alternatives to re-certification

Dr. Michael S. Smith
Dr. Michael S. Smith

Report by Michael S. Smith, MD, MBA

Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University
ACG’s LCCR Representative

On Friday, September 16, I represented the ACG at the ABIM’s Liaison Committee on Certification and Recertification (LCCR) meeting. Each society in attendance was invited to present on the ABIM’s proposal for either a 2- or 5-year MOC assessment model as an alternative to the current 10 year secure exam.

On behalf of the ACG, I applauded ABIM for exploring potentially less intrusive options, but I noted that the College could not endorse either the 2- or 5-year plans, given a lack of details available at this time. I noted that it was uncertain whether these options would cost less or be less burdensome for busy physicians.

Representing the College, I also questioned the role of MOC and CME activities in the new assessment models. I then asked that ABIM reconsider the need for the non-secured exams to be timed, as that does not reflect the current practice of medicine. Additionally, I urged the inclusion of a modular approach to assessment, not the current plan to test the entire breadth of specialties (such as GI) every 2 or 5 years.

Finally, I suggested ABIM will need to consider carefully who develops the list of recommended CME activities to close knowledge gaps when disciplines like GI have multiple societies with overlap in the content of their activities.

These comments were echoed by the 20+ societies that were present at the meeting, including our sister GI societies. Following this feedback session, ABIM hosted a panel discussion to address the input from the groups in attendance.  It was clear during this session that the comments were not what ABIM had hoped for.  The societies encouraged ABIM to reconsider carefully their alternative MOC assessment models in order to incorporate this feedback, even if it meant a delay in the launch of the first round of alternative assessments in 2018.