Health Policy  |   March 2020
Value of the Continuing Certification Modules and Challenging the Status Quo
Author Notes
  • A previous draft of this article was written by Dr Capoocia as part of the requirements of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine Health Policy Fellows 2018.  
  • Financial Disclosures: None reported.  
  • Support: None reported.  
  •  *Address correspondence to Amy Capoocia, DO, Access Health Care Physicians, LLC, 0494 Northcliffe Blvd, Spring Hill, FL 34609. Email: drred2003@yahoo.com
     
Article Information
Medical Education / Professional Issues
Health Policy   |   March 2020
Value of the Continuing Certification Modules and Challenging the Status Quo
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, March 2020, Vol. 120, 128-132. doi:https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2020.025
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, March 2020, Vol. 120, 128-132. doi:https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2020.025
The need for lifelong learning is inherent to the medical profession. Historically, there was limited oversight on physician training and no clear way to distinguish whether a physician had achieved proficiency in medical assessments and treatments. In the early 20th century, groups of physicians came together to promote advancements in medical science and to identify the boundaries that define specific specialties. In 1917, ophthalmology became the first officially incorporated board, followed by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) in 1933 and the Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists (BOS) in 1939.1 
Board certification has long been held as the traditional measure of professionalism, the highest standard of care, and an indicator that a physician is committed to excellence. However, over the past 30 years, increased supervision, regulation, and mandates from medical certification bodies have grown in scope and intensity. For example, the ABMS developed Maintenance of Certification (MOC) modules along with standardized testing in 1990. The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) replaced lifelong board certification with a 10-year MOC in 2000. But as the requirements for certification and associated costs have continued to rise, have these requirements been proven to be beneficial to overall quality of patient care? 

Subscribe to view more

For full access to this article, log in to an existing user account, purchase an annual subscription, or purchase a short-term subscription.

Order a subscription

Subscribe

Pay Per View

Entire Journal
30-Day Access

$50.00

Buy Now

This Issue
7-Day Access

$25.00

Buy Now

This article
24-Hour Access

$10.00

Buy Now

Sign In Or Create an account

Please sign in using your Osteopathic.org login.
If you do not have an AOA login, you may create a new account.

Or Subscribe