Sign Petition

Support Choice

We, the undersigned, strongly believe that AMA Proposed Resolution 316-I-22 should be rejected and immediately withdrawn from consideration. Proposed Resolution 316 is highly misleading and violates the standards and values it purports to uphold.

If adopted, the AMA and its physician members will join a conspiracy led by ABMS to eliminate competition in the physician certification market. This resolution parrots statements from the ABMS “Toolkit,” a set of documents designed to discredit the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons, including by means of false and misleading statements. This Policy exposes the AMA to potential antitrust liability. This resolution represents the special and particular interests of the ABMS, not hardworking physicians in practice. If passed, Resolution 316-I-22 will continue to alienate the majority of physicians from the AMA, immediately jeopardize employment of thousands of physicians, thereby adding to the ever-increasing physician shortage crisis and materially threatening the health and safety of patients across the country.

Resolution 316 also materially and substantially violates: (i) the rights and privileges of thousands of board certified U.S. physicians practicing in all 50 states; (ii) position statements put forth by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Federal Trade Commission; (iii) the laws of individual states; (iv) standing AMA policy; (v) national accreditation standards for hospital and health plans, including those put forth by The Joint Commission, DNV, NCQA, and URAC; and (vi) the bylaws and policies of hundreds of highly respected healthcare entities, including hospitals, health systems, telemedicine companies, commercial payors, and others that enthusiastically recognize, accredit, and welcome NBPAS physicians. Resolution 316 even violates the American Board of Medical Specialties’ (ABMS) own Vision Commission report, which collectively encourages competition and opposes actions that are discriminatory towards physicians based solely on participation in the continuing certification programs of ABMS or the American Osteopathic Association (AOA).

We categorically disagree with the misleading statement that “only the entity that initially certifies an individual should recertify the individual’s certificate thereafter.” Medicine is evidence-based, and there is zero evidence to support the veracity or validity of this opinion-based statement. Furthermore, what if the original certifying entity ceases to do business? Physicians have choice and can seek continuing certification elsewhere. Such a statement is not only short-sighted, it is also anti-competitive.

It is well known that historically up to 40% of ABMS and AOA diplomates have been exempted from continuing certification requirements because they are grandfathered. Therefore, any insinuation of superiority of ABMS/AOA continuing certification is misleading, as a considerable faction of ABMS- or AOA-certified physicians hold themselves out as being “board certified” without participation in a specialty-specific requirement—or any requirement at all. Further, after initial certification, there is an abundance of well known literature that calls into question whether continuing certification programs of ABMS or AOA adequately measure physician competency or knowledge and thereby improve patient outcomes or protect patient safety.

In summary, we agree that there are many legitimate certifying boards beyond ABMS and AOA, and NBPAS is one of them. NBPAS is a nationally recognized continuous certification body that meets the accreditation requirements for hospitals and health plans and is nationally recognized and accepted by respected and prestigious healthcare entities. Proposed Resolution 316 discriminates against NBPAS physicians and must be immediately removed from consideration and permanently tabled. The fiscal impact of this resolution would be incalculable due to the numerous conflicts with public and private policies, not to mention further exacerbation of physician loss if NBPAS certified physicians are prohibited from practicing medicine and replaced by advanced practice providers. We strongly caution the AMA regarding the risks inherent to Proposed Resolution 316 due to its discriminatory and anti- competitive elements and its potential to undermine AMA’s stated goals and policies related to supporting physicians.

Proposed Resolution 316 advances unsupported, inaccurate positions. I encourage you to vote ‘no’ on 316-I-22.