The latest phony issue deployed by the Dems and their media accomplices against Rand Paul involves his ophthalmology certification. Because his certification is with the National Board of Ophthalmology, they are claiming that he isn’t legitimately certified:
Lori Boukas, a spokeswoman for the American Board of Medical Specialties, said her organization considers certifications to be valid only if they are done by the 24 groups that have its approval and that of the AMA. ‘He is not board-certified,’ she said of Paul.
In other words, his certification group doesn’t pay homage (and money) to the quislings at the AMA. This is a phony issue if ever there was one, but you can bet it will be all over the “news” media. Here’s the actual explanation from Paul himself:
I took the American Board of Ophthalmology (the largest governing body in ophthalmology) boards in 1995, passed them on my first attempt (as well as three times during residency), and was therefore board-certified under this organization for a decade.
So, why is he certified by a different outfit?
In 1997, I, along with 200 other young ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology to protest the American Board of Ophthalmology’s decision to grandfather in the older ophthalmologists and not require them to recertify.
It will be interesting to watch the MSM, which shows no interest in Democrats falsely claiming to be Viet Nam veterans (and declares anyone asking about the President’s birth certificate to be clinically insane), make a big deal outof this BS.
Comments 8
‘The American Board operates out of an office building in a Philadelphia suburb and has 11 employees. The group’s board of directors includes 20 people from around the country, 18 of whom are ophthalmologists.
‘In comparison, the address for Paul’s group is a UPS Store in Bowling Green.’
Have you gone blind, David?
Posted 14 Jun 2010 at 4:50 pm ¶Its still a phony issue. Many choose to forego recertification in many medical fields.
Posted 15 Jun 2010 at 10:46 am ¶About 85% of American physicians are board certified and there is research that shows that certified doctors have better outcomes. So tell me - if you are seeking a doctor would you deliberately seek out one who wasn’t certified?
Posted 15 Jun 2010 at 4:32 pm ¶Marc,
Please provde a citation for those studies. Did they exclude people with lifetime certifications? I was Board Certified once. Anyone certified the year prior (or 20 years prior) is certified for life. Those very same people decided that I needed to be recetified every ten years, while they did not.
So unless the study accounts for lifetime certification by excluding it, or counts those with lapsed certifications as “board certified,” I would question any conclusion drawn from them. And if they do, then you make my point.
P.S. Since my certification lapsed, I have had no trouble attracting patients.
Posted 15 Jun 2010 at 5:31 pm ¶Rich, have a look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1553526/
I must say that I wouldn’t trust a doctor who showed no commitment to accredited continuous professional development where that is available. Note that this article is about the UK, citing evidence from the US, and is positive about the US system as another possibility for the professional programmes in the NHS and in the Royal College (speciality) programmes we have.
‘Since 1999, four well conducted studies have concluded that board certification is associated with provision of higher quality care across a range of specialties.’
‘The study used data from 16 629 stays in hospital in 1993 in Pennsylvania and found that certification in internal medicine or cardiology was associated with a 19% reduction in mortality (after adjusting for hospital resources, comorbidities, and other variables).’
‘As well as correlations between certification and clinical processes and outcomes, recent studies have found that a lack of certification is associated with increased risk of disciplinary action.’
Posted 16 Jun 2010 at 8:55 am ¶In 1993, all US board certified internists were certified for life. There exist professional development programs other than the certification boards, that do not require confiscatory payment in order to participate. (medical subspecialty boards which require recertifocation charge upward of $2000 to sit for the exam every ten years, in addition to required continued education courses which are state mandated, and the cost of which is in addition to board fees.)
Many hospitals and other credentialing entities recognize the problem with requiring a physician boarded in 1996 to recertify to be recredentialed, and not requirong it of someone boarded in 1995. The studies do not take into account internists boarded for life versus those with lapses certs, only thoses boarded for life vs. Those NEVER boarded.
Posted 16 Jun 2010 at 12:25 pm ¶I’m not disputing it needs consistency. I presume you’re not against a system of ongoing certification of competency and knowledge.
Posted 16 Jun 2010 at 2:35 pm ¶Some boards “certify” only the top 67%. No matter how well the bottom 33% score. Who is going to go to medical school, residency and fellowship and go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and then not be able to practice because they scored in the bottom 33%. Why not score as a minimum amount of information candidates should know whether it be 99% of the material or 85%? Make it a learning experience also. Physicians are paying thousands of dollars to take these tests in addition to the time preparing for them.
Posted 05 Jul 2010 at 11:03 pm ¶Post a Comment