Posts Tagged ‘AAPS’

AAPS Sues the American Board of Medical Specialties for Restraining Trade through Its Burdensome Recertification Program

TUCSON, Ariz., April 24, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ –The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) has filed suit today in federal court against the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) for restraining trade and causing a reduction in access by patients to their physicians. The ABMS has entered into agreements with 24 other corporations to impose enormous “recertification” burdens on physicians, which are not justified by any significant improvements in patient care.

ABMS has a proprietary, trademarked program of recertification, called the “ABMS Maintenance of Certification®” or “ABMS MOC®,” which brings in many tens of millions of dollars in revenue to ABMS and the 24 allied corporations. Though ostensibly non-profit, these corporations then pay prodigious salaries to their executives, often in excess of $700,000 per year. But their recertification demands take physicians away from their patients, and result in hospitals denying access by patients to their physicians.

In a case cited in this lawsuit, a first-rate physician in New Jersey was excluded from the medical staff at a hospital in New Jersey simply because he had not paid for and spent time on recertification with one of these private corporations. He runs a charity clinic that has logged more than 30,000 visits, but now none of those patients can see him at the local hospital because of the money-making scheme of recertification.

There is a worsening doctor shortage in the United States, such that the average physician has the time to spend only 7 minutes with each patient. Roughly half the counties in our nation lack a single OB/GYN physician to care for women. There are long delays to see primary care physicians in Massachusetts, and about half of them are not even taking new patients.

Money-making schemes that reduce access by patients to patients, as “maintenance of certification” does, are against public policy and harmful to the timely delivery of medical care. AAPS’s lawsuit states, “There is no justification for requiring the purchase of Defendant’s product as a condition of practicing medicine or being on hospital medical staffs, yet ABMS has agreed with others to cause exclusion of physicians who do not purchase or comply with Defendant’s program.” AAPS adds that ABMS’s “program is a moneymaking, self-enrichment scheme that reduces the supply of hospital-based physicians and decreases the time physicians have available for patients, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”

ABMS does the public an additional disservice by inviting patients to search on which physicians have “recertified” and which ones have not, despite the lack of evidence that there is any difference in malpractice rates between the two categories. ABMS should try to make money by helping patients, rather than disparaging the many thousands of good physicians who spend their time caring for patients rather than on ABMS’s self-serving recertification scheme.

A recent survey by AAPS showed that only 9.5% of 167 respondents thought that “maintenance of certification is good; we should support it.” In anearlier survey, only 22% of physicians who had been through the process said they would voluntarily do it again.

AAPS’s lawsuit, which was filed today in Trenton, New Jersey, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin ABMS’s continuing violations of antitrust law and misrepresentations about the medical skills of physicians who decline to purchase and spend time on its program. AAPS also seeks a refund of fees paid by its members to ABMS and its 24 other corporations as a result of ABMS’s conduct.


AAPS Sues to End Recertification Program

As promised, this site received and now posts the letter ( ABMS letter to SenCoffee) from Kevin Weiss MD, CEO of ABMS, opposing the Oklahoma Medical Boards final approval for ABPS diplomats to advertise their board certification. On November 18, 2009 a public hearing to recognize the ABPS as another pathway to ‘Board Certification’ for the purpose of physicians advertising their credentials to the public was granted.
The problem with Dr. Weiss’s letter was (1)  it was sent AFTER approval was granted by the Oklahoma Medical Board, AND  (2) after receiving the letter it seems that Senator Coffee contacted influential board member(s) per Dr. Kevin Weiss’s influence, and as a result, the Board overturned their properly considered approval of ABPS  and (3) Dr. Weiss’s ABMS’ letter is filled with propaganda and mischaracterizations, which Senator Coffee obviously did not take the time to check out. 
This conduct is, at the very least unethical, and possibly actionable, on multiple levels and a response from the Oklahoma Medical Board, Senator Glenn Coffee and ABMS and ABPS to clarify this issue would be much appreciated.
Board tampering and misconduct are alleged to have occurred during this period by virtue of interference with the medical board’s decision by parties who are not members of the board.

ABMS letter to SenCoffee

ABMS Resorts to State Board Tampering Part 1

(from Emergency Medicine News Volume XXXI, Number 2 February 2009)

 By Ruth SoRelle, MPH






A recruiting letter from Team- Health has raised the hackles of leaders in Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s emergency medicine residency program, and has even drawn a demur from the president of the American College of Emergency Physicians.“It was sent out by one of those big agencies,” said Keith Wrenn, MD, the director of the emergency medicine residency program at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville. “By recruiting people who have not been trained in emergency medicine, they are undermining the whole board certification process.”




In the letter that began “Dear Primary Care Resident,” Dr. Dukes wrote: “Physicians who are trained in primary care specialties such as Family Practice and Internal Medicine are in a position to take advantage of the opportunities available in Emergency Medicine.” He noted that only 1,100 doctors graduate from emergency medicine residencies in the United States each year, a number that falls short of meeting the demand.

“Therefore, primary care physicians will be needed in the foreseeable future to staff the nation’s Emergency Departments,” Dr. Dukes wrote. “ECC’s experience over the past 27 years reveals that Primary Care trained physicians are well equipped to perform superbly in the Emergency Department,” noting that they have the “people skills”needed to “get along with patients, hospital staff, and attending physicians.”

The letter continued: “We have immediate opportunities available in several of our departments for Primary Care Residents to work directly with an experienced Emergency Medicine Physician. Residents are compensated while receiving on the job training.”

David Lawhorn, MD, the president of the Tennessee chapter of American Academy of Emergency Medicine, did not dispute that more emergency physicians are needed, and he said the number of emergency medicine residency slots should be examined. “But he said one of the significant differences between primary care and emergency medicine is that primary care physicians begin to lose many of their procedural skills, such as intubations or central lines, due to the demands of the office-based practice. “It is in these critical care areas that the emergency medicine-trained physician stands out and performs confidently, knowledgeably, and routinely. In the United States today, we are like a hybrid of primary care, office surgery, and critical care intensivist. It is clearly very disheartening for the trained emergency medicine physician who loses his emergency medicine job to someone trained in another specialty,” Dr. Lawhorn said.

Yet he acknowledged Dr. Dukes’ dilemma. “It is absolutely true that we in the United States will need physicians other than EM residency-trained physicians to continue to staff emergency departments across the country for several years to come. Even if EM residency programs were able … to fill all the slots, the problem would still exist with the many, many rural hospitals,” he said. “I suspect that ECC of TeamHealth has a significant number of these small rural EDs with which they have contracted to provide services, and thus put themselves in a position to fill the EM slots with any viable physician they can find.”

The reluctance of many emergency medicine-trained physicians to work with contract management groups also constrains supply, Dr. Lawhorn said. He noted that the letter implied contract management’s difficulty in filling EM slots with residency trained, board certified emergency specialists, adding that this will persist because of the contract management companies’ “necessary strategy for survival of getting the contract first and then figuring out how to fill the positions needed for coverage.”

But beyond the recruitment message of the letter is a bigger issue for the future of emergency medicine, Dr. Lawhorn said. “It is so close and obvious that it can be hard to see. Step back a bit, and you will see a large corporation in the business of selling the highest quality, lowest cost emergency care to the hospitals with which they contract. And now they are looking to other specialties to fulfill that role. What other board specialty in the United States has large business-run corporations that sell themselves as the leaders in that specialty that then turn around and recruit the residents from other specialties to fill their needs so that they can maintain contracts and keep their revenue streams?” Dr. Dukes said he sees no proble with recruiting primary care residents.“If you look at emergency medicine, what makes an emergency physician? A core of knowledge and technical skills,” he said. “I think these physicians have been proven to do as good a job as anyone in the emergency department. For these physicians to start in emergency medicine, they need to have the ability to work in the department along with another experienced physician. Once they get trained in family practice or internal medicine, they need some orientation in an emergency department along with training in advanced life support and other programs to work a solo shift. The letter was for primary care residents to offer them a position as a second physician usually working in the fast track alongside an experienced emergency physician.”Acknowledging that a Dec. 2, 2008, Institute of Medicine report (

aspx) on residency hours would include moonlighting in the numbers of hours resident is allowed to work, Dr. Dukes said ECC is open in its dealings with residency programs. “We usually take a few people in the third year with the knowledge of the program director. We also work with some physicians in emergency medicine fellowships,” he said.

Dr. Dukes said he recognized the controversy over this issue in emergency medicine. “I know AAEM does not recognize the AAPS board,” he said. “That is kind of bad. How are we ever going to get board certified physicians in all these hospitals if they are not graduating enough emergency medicine-trained physicians each year? For physicians who don’t have the same training but have excellent training in primary care and are doing the same rotations as emergency residents, how can they get certified?”

Dr. Wrenn of the Vanderbilt residency program said Dr. Dukes is seeking to employ physicians who completed primary care training but now want to practice another specialty. Such people can seek retraining and board certification through the American Board of Emergency Medicine, he said, although no federal funds support it.


“I am not sure as a specialty that we have done the best we can to send emergency physicians to the rural areas,” said Dr. Wrenn, also the vice chairman and a professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt. “We need to address that, but it needs to be addressed by board certified people, not those who have not been trained.”

Excerpt from AAPS letter to EM News:

BCEM, along with Team Health and others, recognizes that there are too few emergency medicine residency trained physicians to meet the growing needs of our nation’s communities, particularly rural emergency departments. The 1,100 physicians who graduate from Emergency Medicine residencies each year in the U.S. falls short of meeting the need which exists…

AAPS’ Board of Certification in Emergency Medicine (BCEM) provides primary care residency trained physicians practicing full time in Emergency Medicine, a valid and critical option to demonstrate that they can perform confidently, knowledgeably and safely.  BCEM has certified and recertified thousands of well qualified Primary Care residency trained physicians working in Emergency Medicine. BCEM Diplomates continue to increase in numbers…

At no time is BCEM’s option to board certification in Emergency Medicine designed to diminish Emergency Medicine residency training. Instead, BCEM’s focus is to provide a legitimate and recognized option for Primary Care residency trained physicians to demonstrate competency and to become certified in the specialty of Emergency Medicine.

BCEM has, and continues to, welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss effective methods that EM residency trained and non-EM residency trained physicians, including Primary Care residency trained physicians, can employ and engage to work together to provide care to the Moms, Dads, and families who present themselves each year to our nation’s ERs..”

Robert J. Geller, D.O., FAAEP

Chairman, BCEM

 Link: Supply of Board Certified EM Physicians Unlikely to Meet Country’s   Needs









Editor’s Note: In the April 2008 issue of FCEP EM-Pulse, editor-in-chief Dr. Mylissa Graber wrote ” Our issue (board certification) basically got ‘hijacked’ by a small group of physicians and one Senator who turned the issue into something it is not,… It was one of the most appalling displays of deceit I have seen by a group of doctors who have been practicing for 20-plus years, who would in no way be impacted by this legislation, unless of course they work directly for AAPS,…”)

Comment on EM Pulse Editorial April 2008

We have been following the medico-legal issues raised by the in-fighting in emergency medicine for some time now; occasionally with amusement, but almost always with disappointment and gravitas. We find Dr. Graber’s recent editorial (see above), given her ascension to the position of vice president of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians [FCEP], sadly disappointing, and intemperate. We would hope that a physician at her level would strive to end the divisiveness that prevents the unification of emergency medicine, in order to provide excellent cost effective emergency care for Floridians and citizens of the United States. To that end, we felt compelled to address many of the issues raised by Dr. Graber.

The American Board of Physician Specialties [ABPS] certifies physicians in Emergency Medicine through BCEM, their Board of Certification in Emergency Medicine. BCEM certified physicians have completed residencies in a primary care specialty and practiced in an ER for at least five years, logging no less than 7,000 consecutive hours. This stringent and exacting qualification criteria mirrors the exact requirements for ABEM (American Board of Emergency Medicine) “grandfathered” diplomates (medical professionals who have not done a residency in emergency medicine, yet who according to ABEM criteria meet the requirements to be Board Certified emergency medicine practitioners).

BCEM certified physicians have not completed a residency in emergency medicine, similar to their ABEM certified “grandfathered” colleagues. Thus, when Dr. Graber and Florida College of Emergency Physicians [FCEP] lobbies the legislature to define a board certified physician as one that has completed a residency in emergency medicine and certified by ABEM, Dr. Graber in effect seeks to eliminate all non residency trained ER physicians from the workplace. Dr. Graber seems willing to destroy the careers of ER physician members of her own organization in order to push for what she believes to be the gold standard, EM residency trained physicians. Why? Many individual BCEM certified physicians have been practicing emergency medicine for upwards of thirty (30) years. Surely Dr. Graber would not suggest in her current position, that new residency trained physicians replace senior experienced attending physicians. Or would she?

Notwithstanding Dr. Graber and FCEP/ACEP’s efforts, Florida’s Board of Medicine has evaluated and approved BCEM credentials, permitting BCEM diplomates to represent themselves as Board Certified in Florida. The only difference between BCEM and ABEM certified physicians is BCEM’s commitment to certifying physicians skilled in Emergency Medicine from all relevant disciplines, including but not limited to Emergency Medicine residency training.

The American College of Emergency Physicians [ACEP], and the Florida College of Emergency Physicians [FCEP],important organizations that purport to represent all emergency medicine physicians, really only support ABEM certified, residency trained ER physicians. ACEP’s position has created sedimentary layering and artificial lines of medical skill demarcation among all other emergency medicine physicians, including their own ABEM “grandfathered”, non ER residency trained physicians.

Dr. Mylissa Graber, vice-president of FCEP, has propagandized against AAPS (American Association of Physician Specialists) in recent editorials in FCEP’s EM-Pulse newsletter, of which Dr. Graber is editor-in-chief. Dr. Graber launched a seemingly vituperous and potentially libelous attacks against AAPS, chanting the ACEP party line, that only EM residency trained physicians are competent to practice Emergency Medicine. Dr. Graber has never stated what she expects non-EM residency trained physicians, including those grandfathered by her own organization to do, if Dr. Graber and FCEP are successful.

BCEM certified, non emergency medicine residency trained physicians have been rejected from numerous hospitals because they did not do a residency in emergency medicine. These doctors are limited in where they can live, by virtue of restrictions on where they can work. Even Frederick Blum MD, past ACEP president, admitted that he himself was a victim of this restraint of trade. While holding ABEM certification, he still could not work in many hospitals because he was not residency trained. Thus, Dr. Blum, in a letter to the ACEP certification section concluded:
“I understand why many of you sought certification with BCEM. In your position I would have done the very same thing. I will support your right to do so and your rights as members [of ACEP]….and your ability to practice unfettered.” It is unfortunate that Dr. Graber and FCEP do not share this understanding. Instead, they engage in short-sighted and self-interested efforts to eliminate highly skilled competitor ER physicians from the market place by numerous attempts to eviscerate the law that the State of Florida has put in place to allow these skilled physicians to practice Emergency medicine.

As Dr. James Meade, Florida physician and lifetime member of ACEP wrote in response to Dr. Graber’s earlier editorial:
The continuing controversy over board certification ABEM v BCEM is counterproductive and serves no good purpose. I find it baffling since we all have the same goals: to improve the practice of emergency medicine.
Furthermore, the Florida Board of Medicine after a 3 year study, decided that The American Association of Physician Specialists (which includes the Board of Certification in Emergency Medicine) is a legitimate and bona fide organization and should be granted approval as a specialty recognizing agency… The Florida decision has since been unsuccessfully challenged on five (5) separate occasions by ACEP/FCEP and its allies, even though the composition of the Florida Board of Medicine has almost completely changed during that period.”

Dr. Meade went on to state that ACEP/FCEP have resorted to other tactics, such as writing language into statutes that would have the effect of undoing and undermining the legislative intent of the Florida Medical Board e.g. the requirement that EMS medical directors be emergency medicine residency trained. A hearing before an administrative law judge recently reaffirmed the original decision of the Florida Board of Medicine

Relentless and undaunted, in March 2008, FCEP resubmitted yet another bill, in the hopes of subverting the original decision of the Florida Medical Board. This time, after another fair and unbiased hearing in the Florida Legislature’s Health Regulations committee, FCEP was forced to withdraw the bill after hearing testimony that revealed its many embarrassingly obvious flaws. Yet, Dr. Graber insists that the bill did not fail, and ominously points out that “Time is on our side.”

Dr. Graber in her editorial, accused the doctors that testified against her/FCEP’s bill in Tallahassee, Florida, of being on AAPS’s payroll. However, this writer found that the only people who were remunerated by AAPS was their contract lobbyist in Tallahassee and an AAPS national government affairs manager, both of whom were in attendance at the meeting and neither of whom testified. The doctors who spoke were volunteers who received no compensation and whose only motives were to speak the truth and improve the practice of Emergency Medicine. I wonder if as vice-president of FCEP, whether Dr. Mylissa Graber’s trip to Tallahassee was paid for by FCEP, and if so, are the FCEP members who are not ABEM certified aware that their dues are being spent on trips supporting a bill that effectively discriminates against them and essentially restricts their livelihood and careers?

Dr. Graber further asserts that “…emergency medicine has become very complex…”. Has it really become so complex that it necessitates the exclusion of qualified doctors from the practice of emergency medicine?

So, what the issue comes down to is this; FCEP’s many efforts, including bill writing, is not about quality of care or the future of emergency medicine. If so, there would have been a rather convincing and statistically substantive argument posited. Rather, it appears that its efforts are protectionist in nature and only supported by the Florida College of Emergency Physicians [FCEP].

AAPS is in business to certify physicians expert in emergency medicine to provide the highest level of care to the citizens of every State, not limit the market place to a few physicians who as a matter of timing, had full access to residency programs in emergency medicine, and who, without competition, would be able to fix higher costs for their services. AAPS also recognizes those physicians trained in other relevant fields, with many years of experience in Emergency Medicine. Thus providing for the nation, a larger talent pool of expert emergency physicians that would control costs, and minimize physician shortage in Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Graber’s editorial entitled “Time is on Our Side” poses far more questions than it answers. The big question is, whose side is Dr. Graber and the restrictive special interest organization FCEP really on? Certainly not on the side of patients, Florida residents whose access to quality emergency care would be curtailed by their bill, and not their own FCEP members without ABEM certification and a residency in Emergency Medicine.

Perhaps Dr. Graber should take a lesson from New York, where AAPS was forced to bring suit against the New York State Department of Health [DOH], after years of unreasonable and unlawful attacks against them by New York ACEP and its allies. It seems that in New York, ACEP and its allies misrepresented AAPS to the NYSDOH and got the DOH to irrationally exclude ABPS as a legitimate Board. Thus, in New York, BCEM certified physicians have been unable to refer to themselves as board certified. I suspect, like Florida, New York will settle and include ABPS as a legitimate board.

Time may not be on Dr. Graber’s side if the NYS-DOH settles or goes to trial and loses. Certainly, all organizations upon which New York relied in excluding BCEM physicians would be called upon to testify as to their reasons for blackballing AAPS, perhaps Dr. Graber herself could give up some of the time that is on her side. That said, it is perhaps later than Dr. Graber thinks, and it would be wonderful if she had a change of heart and approached this issue in a manner befitting her office for the good of Florida and the nation.

Richard E. Davis, JD.
Director, Litigation Logistics
Special consultant, PUMAMD

AAPS vs. NYS-DOH Update
Fighting to Level the Playing Field for AAPS Docs in NY
Florida to Say “Bye-Bye Grandpa!”
Honoring a Legacy or Opening a Loophole (EM News)


For years, ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM have sought to eliminate competition from ABPS board certified physicians. In New York State, they seem to have tricked the DOH (Department of Health) into accepting their version of the facts: that only residency trained ER physicians are qualified to practice emergency medicine. Unfortunately, by so doing they may have also stripped board certification in Emergency Medicine from their grandfathered members, who are NOT residency trained in ER medicine.

In their rush to exclude competition from ABPS certified physicians from the practice of Emergency Medicine, ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM should have heeded the advice in the Proverbs of Solomon, regarding wisdom, or the common prudence, that everything cuts two ways!

ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM lobbied NYS- DOH to list only ABEM residency trained physicians on their website as being board certified in Emergency Medicine [].
ABPS sought the same privilege but were repeatedly, irrationally and arbitrarily denied. After being unfairly denied on multiple occasions, ABPS finally brought suit against the NYSDOH under Equal Protection, seeking to have ABPS certified physicians listed on the NYSDOH website as board certified, as other boards have successfully done in other states. (see ABCS case)

This issue has been contentiously argued. ACEP officials such as Dr. Melissa Graber
and Dr. Carol Rogala have vehemently castigated ABPS for filing this suit, asserting their lack of basis and ABPS’s reluctance to share their world view, that the only way to practice emergency medicine is after a residency in that specialty.

In other words, why can’t ABPS just keep quiet and allow ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM to continue their monopoly of Emergency Medicine?

Didn’t Daniels [Daniels v. ABEM] lose his case asserting monopolistic practice in Emergency Medicine by ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM? Not exactly. Daniels lost, but not on the merits.
Daniels was not dismissed on the merits. The error in the Daniels case was, when asked what he was seeking he said he wanted to practice emergency medicine, and if ABEM let him take their test then he would be able to practice. Simple enough, right? Daniels knew that ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM were lobbying so that for him to practice ER medicine, he had to join their group. He knew, that ABPS would face constant attack, notwithstanding the equivalency of their examination and certification process. That’s just the way it was and is.

But how could Daniels sue ABEM because ABEM won’t let him join them?

If what Daniels said was true and ABMS/ABEM were unlawful monopolizers, then a monopoly existed and he was being economically excluded. The court said, you can’t come to us to help you join a group you claim are unlawful monopolizers under the Sherman antitrust act. We the court, can’t help you join the monopolizers. Dismissed.

But what has occurred in NY is not much different.

Daniels should have joined ABPS and obtained their certification. His practice would have been impeded as well, since hospitals do not consider ABPS board certification and New York State won’t list ABPS as a legitimate board, because, ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM have lobbied to get NY State to help them eliminate their competitors.

New York listened and will not list a physician not residency trained in ER medicine as board certified on its website. This is inconsistent, since NY lists all the grandfathered ABEM certified physicians who definitely did not do residencies in ER medicine, as board certified.
ABPS cried “Foul!”

Of course, what’s interesting is that if the training was so unique, then any physician not trained in EM, would fail tests of the subject matter. But we know that’s not so…since ABEM grandfathered physicians have managed to do just that, and Daniels and many other excluded physicians are certainly no different in training from the physicians permitted grandfather status from an arbitrary closure of the practice track in EM.

In fact, all of the certified ABPS physicians are convinced they would also pass the ABEM board examination, just like their grand-fathered colleagues. Dwight Collman [ABEM certified], arguably the best ER Board Preparer in the country, did not do a residency in ER medicine. No one doubts his fund of knowledge nor his likely skill in the actual practice of EM.

And of course, what’s so wrong about using NY State to burden ABPS under the guise of jurisprudence or concern for the patient even if the relationship between the means and the ends are irrational? The fact that NY State ends up protecting ABEM/ABMS/ACEP/AAEM from economic competitors, though not a legitimate government purpose, well, that’s alright too, ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM knows best! Since the legal standard of review would be “rational basis” it seems that ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM took their chances. Anything can be deemed rational and many courts have found rationality when there was none.

The deck stacked in their favor, ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM pressed on in lockstep, with their self righteous, strong arm tactics, oblivious to cogent arguments against their positions from the State, who quite frankly, never investigated. What ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM/NYSDOH forget is that “rational basis” also cuts two ways and ab initio, does not mean abdication of judicial review.

If, as it is said, “Nothing cleanses like daylight”, then ABPS’s contention that its
certified member physicians are under unfair attack by unlawful discrimination, and that ABMS/ABEM/ACEP/AAEM have enlisted the State as aider and abettor in their attempt to destroy ABPS appears to be true.

Under the current NYSDOH rules, only ER residency trained and ABEM certified physicians can list themselves as board certified on the NY Physician Profile website.
( The website defines “board certification” as:
“If a doctor is Board Certified, this means that he or she had graduated from medical school; completed residency (training in a hospital); trained under supervision in a specialty, and passed an exam given by a medical specialty board.”

That’s right. Under this rule, ABMS/ACEP/ABEM/AAEM, seeking to eliminate ABPS competition, also strips board certification in New York from ABEM grandfathered physicians, not residency trained in Emergency Medicine

Technically, those grandfathered physicians cannot promote themselves in NY State as “Board certified” because they did not do an EM residency. Also, on applications to hospitals that ask for Board Certified physicians, they are as precluded as are ABPS physicians from getting those jobs, although we all know they are just as qualified.

Should the NYSDOH de-list ABEM certified non ER residency trained as not being board certified? ABPS does not think so. To their credit, ABPS does not seek to disenfranchise ABEM grandfathered physicians, but regards them highly, and would be happy to provide them with a new home in AAPS [American Association of Physician Specialists]. All they seek is for their own certified physicians to be treated fairly.

Fighting to “Level the Playing Field” for ABPS Docs in NY

Hear! Hear! Judge Decides NY AAPS Case Goes Forward

Disposable Doctors 2: ER Docs Fight Back in NY