Roll Call for MOL?

 After I found out that Wisconsin didn’t seem to be an enthusiastic supporter of Maintenance of Licensure (MOL), despite it being on the very short list of states (Wisconsin, Colorado, Delaware, California, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Virginia, Ohio, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Iowa) the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) says are pledged to move forward with the pilot projects for implementing MOL, I got curious about just how many other states were on board with the Board. I omitted Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio, of course.  That leaves eight. I added Texas just because it’s a big state. This is far from a complete or scientific search and I admit I’m biased.

Roll Call for MOL:

1. The California Medical Board,  

has a wait-and-see approach on the MOL;  it doesn’t look like it has agreed to any MOL implementation pilot project yet.

2. There’s a committee on the Massachusetts Medical Society: Task Force on Maintenance of Licensure to examine this issue including “redundancy with the current Maintenance of Certification process…” Other than that, I could find nothing in particular. The Massachusetts Medical Board,  didn’t return anything on a search of their web site using terms “MOL” or “Maintenance of Licensure”.   See the MMS House of Delegates 2012 Resolution 107, which is obviously in opposition to MOC and concerned about antitrust violations by MOC.

3. The Oklahoma Board of Medicine,  Winter 2012 newsletter has this to say about MOL, “Currently, Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision (Board) has no timetable or schedule for FSMB MOL implementation.”

4. The Oregon Medical Association, Maintenance of Licensure | Oregon Medical Association carries  a web page dated October 2012 generally favorable to MOL with most links leading back to the FSMB web site, though nothing specific about commitment to implementation in Oregon.

5. The Colorado Medical Society,  lists a subcommittee on MOL and the chairperson’s name, but nothing about MOL itself either pro or con. Despite that, the Colorado Medical Board says the Colorado Medical Society is one of the organizations leading the way. The Colorado Medical Board sounds like it favors MOL.

6. The Mississippi State Medical Association,  favors “continued monitoring of MOL and collaboration with the Federation of State Medical Boards and other stakeholders to develop a coherent set of principles for MOL.” It says nothing about implementation of pilot projects, specifically. The Mississippi State Medical Board has nothing on its web site about MOL,

7. The Delaware State Medical Board, has nothing to say about MOL. Neither does the Medical Society of Delaware, mention MOL.

8. The Virginia Medical Board, agenda lists items indicating ongoing active involvement in MOL pilot projects including a readiness inventory, although the specifics were not available. The Medical Society of Virginia,  didn’t mention MOL.

9. The Texas Medical Association House of Delegates 2013 Oppose MOL Resolution 106,  is available on line.

I think that leaves Virginia, Colorado, and Oregon who sort of say they like the idea of MOL. I’m deliberately not counting Iowa, even though the Iowa Board of Medicine has more explicitly supported MOL  pilot projects for implementation than almost anyone on this list. That said, I believe Iowa physicians have said clearly through the Iowa Medical Society House of Delegates on April 21, 2013, that they are opposed to MOL, though they are in favor of continued quality improvement in safety and clinical care for Iowans, Oppose MOL Resolution Adopted by IMS House of Delegates in Iowa – The Practical Psychosomaticist.

Gee, I don’t know. Maybe we should just quit worrying about the MOL. Board inertia, apathy–and maybe a little common sense from physicians and other “stakeholders” who think it through (three little birds?) might assure that everything’s going to be alright.


%d bloggers like this: