Update: Reply to Open Letter on MOC to APA Candidates

I wanted to share with you a reply I got to my letter to American Psychiatric Association (APA) candidates about their positions on Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and Maintenance of Licensure (MOL) which I posted on the APA LinkedIn site. This is a site which is closed to all but APA members, but she gave me permission to post her views on MOC on my blog. Renee Binder, MDDr. Renee Binder is Candidate for President-Elect of APA, Training Director of Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship at UCSF. Just as a reminder, I posed the following questions to her:

“As a candidate for APA President-Elect in 2014, would you be willing to share any ideas you have on the role of the APA with respect to MOC?

Does APA have any influence on the structure and processes of MOC?

Does APA in general support MOC as is? What is your position?

Given the low likelihood that MOC will go away, do you have any specific plans on how to reform it so as to make it more relevant to our practices and less burdensome?”

Her prompt response:

Dear Dr. Amos,

Thank you for asking about my position on MOC.

I just took my recertification exam in March 2013. When I signed up, I was “randomly” audited and had to produce evidence to show that I had met all of the requirements.

It was a difficult and anxiety producing process for me.

I think that the APA can and should influence the structure of the process of MOC. As you state correctly, the ABPN has the authority to approve MOC products on self assessment, PIP, and CME. I will work to see that the APA develops a multitude of products that will meet with ABPN approval and that are available FREE to our members and considered a benefit of membership.

The current cost of FOCUS is $368 for APA members. This should be free. APA should also make free to our members self-assessment exams and PIP modules that meet the clinical chart requirements.

We also need to do a better job of telling our members that these services and resources are available as a member benefit and fight to streamline the PIP and MOC process.

There is currently a new President and CEO of ABMS. My understanding is that this new leadership is much more flexible about the MOC requirements especially concerning requirements for patient evaluations.

The APA needs to lobby strongly to change the PIP requirements and make them much more reasonable, e.g. not needing to get patient feedback. We have the opportunity to do so with the new ABMS leadership.

I am pleased to find out about the fact that you sponsored a resolution in Iowa to oppose Maintenance of Licensure and that this was adopted by the Iowa Medical Society. I strongly support this action. I believe that we need to partner with the AMA and strongly oppose MOL.

These are my ideas about MOC and MOL. If elected, I would love to work with you and others who are passionate about this issue and will help me reform MOC and make it more responsive to our needs, less expensive, and less burdensome.apa_election_2014

Best wishes,


“…And we must build a culture of humanistic clinical excellence.”—Jamos the Elder
“…And we must build a culture of humanistic clinical excellence.”—Jamos the Elder

I think it’s important for voters in the upcoming election of APA officers on January 2, 2014 to know that at least one candidate has APA members in mind and is willing to share her views on this important issue.

Thank you, Dr. Binder!

One caveat about the Iowa Medical Society House of Delegates approval of my resolution to support lifelong learning and oppose MOL: that does not stop the Iowa Board of Medicine from continuing to collaborate with the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) pursuing MOL implementation pilot projects. So please consider signing my Petition.

Red Pants Revolution for Lifelong Learning!
Red Pants Revolution for Lifelong Learning!

2 thoughts on “Update: Reply to Open Letter on MOC to APA Candidates

  1. Glad you at least got a response. It still just sounds like rhetoric to me, but maybe the ABMS will actually remove the patient eval requirement. That’s the part I think is the most egregious.


    1. I hear you about the rhetoric. However, I’ve talked to another candidate whose position sounds disturbingly close to counseling that we just surrender to MOC.


Comments are closed.