Posts Tagged specialty

MOC Study Committee’s Official Statement on “Vision Initiative” Draft Report

MOC Study Committee’s Official Statement on “Vision Initiative” Draft Report

In response to the Medical Association and other state and national medical and physician specialty societies’ grievances with ABMS, its member Boards, and specifically the MOC program, ABMS sought input from a broad range of stakeholders in an effort to envision and craft a board certification system that is responsive and meaningful to physicians. This effort has included professional medical organizations, national specialty and state medical societies, hospitals and health systems and others. The group released its vision for the future of board certification – dubbed the “Vision Initiative.”

The Medical Association has been active on the MOC issue, through both its MOC Study Committee and advocacy at the national and even state levels. Below is the official statement on the “Vision Initiative” from MOC Study Committee Chairman Dr. Greg Ayers:

“The Medical Association of the State of Alabama’s MOC Study Committee supports a voluntary process for board certification in medical specialties and a departure from the sometimes punitive approach toward certification taken by some American Board of Medical Specialties’ specialty boards. This process must maintain high standards for professionalism and encourage lifelong learning that is clinically relevant to patient care within physicians’ individual practices. The MOC Study Committee believes the ABMS various specialty boards should continue efforts to improve upon and ensure inexpensive, accessible options for increasing the breadth and scope of physicians’ skills and knowledge so they may best serve their patients; however, those efforts should never, of themselves, hinder, obstruct nor supersede the actual provision of care. The ABMS Boards should collaborate to pursue implementation of reciprocal, longitudinal pathways for multi-specialty diplomates. The continuing physician specialty certification process of the future should not include the current high-stakes examination and burdensome, duplicative components of Maintenance of Certification. Given physicians’ support for self-regulation, the MOC Study Committee calls upon the ABMS Boards to fulfill its duty to administer specialty board certification in a manner that assists physicians in continuing to improve the quality of care patients receive.”

Greg Ayers, M.D., Chairman, MOC Study Committee

For more information, see also:

MOC UPDATE: Working to Solve Problems with Certification

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

You Need to Know When to Hold ’em and Know When to Merge ’em

You Need to Know When to Hold ’em and Know When to Merge ’em

With uncertainty in the health care markets and the growing demands on medical practice infrastructure, many physicians are thinking that merging their practice with another might be a worthwhile idea. A merger might be advisable under some circumstances, problematic in other cases, and potentially illegal in certain instances. We will leave the legal issues to the attorneys, but if you are talking with the only other practice of your specialty in your city, I recommend getting some legal advice.

When physicians initiate merger discussions, they often begin with an assumption that they can share the overhead of one group and all enjoy a dramatic increase in personal income. Based on the enthusiasm generated by this monetary issue, a plan to pursue merger begins. However, there are other matters which should come before the optimistic expectation of financial gain.

Do Your Homework

The most basic consideration is whether the physicians in both groups are clinically compatible. Medical training and various academies afford latitude in clinical decision making, a medical choice at one end of that range of latitude can be questionable in the mind of an M.D. on the opposite end. Making certain your groups are clinically compatible is the first step in a successful merger. Compatibility also includes practice patterns, treatment protocols and utilization issues.

If you are a good fit clinically, look next at cultural issues. This includes the manner in which the physicians relate to their patients, the staff and to one another. Many groups will not tolerate a physician who is rude to patients, hostile to staff and abrasive with other doctors in the group or in the medical community. This behavior may have been accepted in one group, but it will be toxic in the merged practice. In my experience working to help keep practices together, cultural differences are the most common areas of disagreement and are also the most difficult problems to solve.

Devising a Plan

If the groups are deemed to be clinically and culturally compatible, the hard part is complete. Now you are ready to address any differences in work ethic. I place this third because if there are differences, they can be mitigated with a well-designed physician compensation formula. There are times when one physician’s pursuit of appropriate work-life balance might result in choices which appear to another M.D. as neglect of the practice, but those are part of the cultural difference resolution. Differences in work ethic must be accommodated in the practice of medicine, and bonus differentials are designed to do exactly that.

Finally, it is time to assess the monetary matters. Overhead can be shared and, perhaps, reduced. The practice management, billing and EMR systems needed for one practice might be able to handle two groups with little increase in costs. Ancillary activities may be more profitable with additional physicians referring to them. The best practice behaviors of each group can be shared to improve patient scheduling, procedure mix, payer mix and revenue cycle processes.

Bet or Fold

The process of determining clinical, behavioral, work ethic and financial compatibility needs an outside facilitator to keep it on track and to ensure the difficult parts of the dialogue are addressed and moving forward, rather than stalling out. A merger may be in the cards for your group, but keep in mind that one done poorly can cause many years of pain which could have been avoided.

 

Article contributed by Sae Evans, Maddox Casey and Jim Stroud, Members, Warren Averett Healthcare Consulting Group. Warren Averett is an official Gold Partner with the Medical Association.

Posted in: Legal Watch

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medical Association Works to Ease MOC Frustrations

Medical Association Works to Ease MOC Frustrations

Frustrations with the current Maintenance of Certification process brought together Medical Association Executive Director Mark Jackson and Council on Medical Service member Jeff Rickert, M.D., and representatives from other state medical societies and individual specialty boards for a series of meetings with the American Board of Medical Specialties.

The daylong meeting in Chicago was called at the request of state medical societies, including the Medical Association, who have expressed increasing frustration with the MOC process and have demanded changes be made. Leadership within ABMS and the specialty boards engaged in meaningful dialogue during the meeting with promises to address criticisms of the current MOC process.

Discussions included 170 innovations the medical boards are working on to address continuous learning for physicians, many of which include input from various outside stakeholders and focus on greater consistency amongst the medical boards. Innovations also include alternatives to the high-stakes exams with a focus on longitudinal learning for physicians in their relevant practice areas. Many medical boards outlined current (or moving to) learning modules that would be seamless for physicians and provide a gap analysis. Most medical boards seemed to be moving away from the high-stakes examination that has been the challenge of the physicians. There was also discussion by some of the medical boards on reducing the fees collected from physicians for the tests and the need to be more customer friendly.

The Medical Association’s Board of Censors created MOC study committee to fully examine the MOC issue and provide feedback to the Board. Dr. Rickert is a member of this committee and will provide input in the coming weeks as the committee discusses recommendations to the Board of Censors.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medical Association’s 2018 State and Federal Agendas

Medical Association’s 2018 State and Federal Agendas

The Medical Association Board of Censors has met and approved the Association’s 2018 State and Federal Agendas. These agendas were developed with guidance from the House of Delegates and input from individual physicians. As the Alabama Legislature and U.S. Congress begin their work for 2018, additional items affecting physicians, medical practices and patients may be added to this list.

Download the Medical Association’s 2018 State and Federal Agendas (PDF)

 

2018 STATE AGENDA

 

The Medical Association supports:

  • Ensuring legislation “first do[es] no harm”
  • Extending the Medicaid payment bump for primary care to all specialties of medicine
  • Eliminating the health insurance-coverage gap for the working poor
  • Ensuring fair payment for patient care and reducing administrative burdens on physicians and medical practices
  • Strengthening existing tort reforms and ensuring liability system stability
  • Empowering patients and their doctors in making medical decisions
  • Continued physician compounding, dispensing of drugs
  • The same standards and reimbursements for telehealth and face-to-face visits
  • Training, education and licensing transparency of all individuals involved in patient care
  • Continued self-regulation of medicine over all areas of patient care
  • Increased state funding to upgrade the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program to a useful tool for physician monitoring patients at risk for drug interactions and overdose potential
  • Using data analytics to combat the drug abuse epidemic by strengthening research capabilities of pre-approved, de-identified prescription information
  • Maintaining the Alabama Department of Public Health as the repository for PDMP information to ensure continuity for prescribers and dispensers and security for patients
  • Standard opioid education in medical school so the physicians of tomorrow are prepared to face the realities and responsibilities of opioid prescribing

 

The Medical Association opposes:

  • The radical Patient Compensation System legislation
  • Legislation/initiatives increasing lawsuits against physicians
  • Non-physicians setting standards for medical care delivery
  • Tax increases disproportionately affecting physicians
  • Expanding access to the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) for law enforcement
  • Statutory requirements for mandatory PDMP checks
  • Further expansion of Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements
  • Changes to workers’ compensation laws negatively affecting treatment of injured workers and medical practices
  • Any scope of practice expansions that endanger patients or reduces quality of care
  • Biologic substitution legislation that allows lower standards in Alabama than those set by the FDA that doesn’t provide immediate notifications to patients and their physicians when a biologic is substituted, and that increases administrative burdens on physicians and medical practices

 

2018 FEDERAL AGENDA

 

The Medical Association supports:

  • Meaningful tort reforms that maintain existing state protections
  • Reducing administrative and regulatory burdens on physicians and medical practices
  • Repeal of the Affordable Care Act and replacement with a system that:
    • Includes meaningful tort reforms that maintain existing state protections
    • Preserves employer-based health insurance
    • Protects coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions
    • Protects coverage for dependents under age 26
    • With proper oversight, allows the sale of health insurance across state lines
    • Allows for deducting individual health insurance expenses on tax returns
    • Increases allowed contributions to health savings accounts
    • Ensures access for vulnerable populations
    • Ensures universal, catastrophic coverage
    • Does not increase uncompensated care
    • Does not require adherence with insurance requirements until insurance reimbursement begins
    • Reduces administrative and regulatory burdens
  • Overhauling federal fraud and abuse programs
  • Reforming the RAC program
  • Prescription drug abuse education, prevention and treatment initiatives
  • Allowing patient private contracting in Medicare
  • Expanding veterans’ access to non-VA physicians
  • Reducing escalating prescription drug costs
  • A patient-centered MACRA framework, including non-punitive and flexible implementation of new MIPS, PQRS and MU requirements
  • Congressional reauthorization of CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) at the current enhanced funding level
  • Better interstate PDMP connectivity
  • Eliminating “pain” as the fifth vital sign
  • Repealing the “language interpreters” rule
  • Requiring all VA facilities, methadone clinics and suboxone clinics to input prescription data into state PDMPs where they are located

 

The Medical Association opposes:

  • Non-physicians setting standards for medical care delivery
  • Publication of Medicare physician payment data
  • National medical licensure that supersedes state licensure
  • Legislation/initiatives increasing lawsuits against physicians

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →