The American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification Examination and State Medical Board Disciplinary Actions: a Population Cohort Study
Some have questioned whether successful performance in the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program is meaningful. The association of the ABIM Internal Medicine (IM) MOC examination with state medical board disciplinary actions is unknown.
To assess risk of disciplinary actions among general internists who did and did not pass the MOC examination within 10 years of initial certification.
Historical population cohort study.
The population of internists certified in internal medicine, but not a subspecialty, from 1990 through 2003 (n = 47,971).
ABIM IM MOC examination.
General internal medicine in the USA.
The primary outcome measure was time to disciplinary action assessed in association with whether the physician passed the ABIM IM MOC examination within 10 years of initial certification, adjusted for training, certification, demographic, and regulatory variables including state medical board Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements.
The risk for discipline among physicians who did not pass the IM MOC examination within the 10 year requirement window was more than double than that of those who did pass the examination (adjusted HR 2.09; 95% CI, 1.83 to 2.39). Disciplinary actions did not vary by state CME requirements (adjusted HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16), but declined with increasing MOC examination scores (Kendall’s tau-b coefficient = − 0.98 for trend, p < 0.001). Among disciplined physicians, actions were less severe among those passing the IM MOC examination within the 10-year requirement window than among those who did not pass the examination.
Passing a periodic assessment of medical knowledge is associated with decreased state medical board disciplinary actions, an important quality outcome of relevance to patients and the profession.
KEY WORDSmaintenance of certification MOC disciplinary action ABIM certification
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their critical review of the manuscript: Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP; Richard J. Baron, MD; J. Taylor Hays, MD, Joseph C. Kolars, MD.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The Institutional Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania approved the study.
Conflict of Interest
All authors are employed by the American Board of Internal Medicine.
- 2.Lipner RS, Hess BJ, Phillips RL. Specialty Board Certification in the United States: Issues and Evidence. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2013(S1):20–35.Google Scholar
- 3.Norcini JJ, Kimball HR, Lipner RS. Certification and specialization: do they matter in the outcome of acute myocardial infarction? Academic Medicine: Journal Of The Association Of American Medical Colleges. 2000;75(12):1193–8.Google Scholar
- 5.Gray BM, Vandergrift JL, Johnston MM, et al. Association Between Imposition of a Maintenance of Certification Requirement and Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Hospitalizations and Health Care Costs. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2014;312(22):2348–57.Google Scholar
- 8.Cook DA, Holmboe ES, Sorensen KJ, Berger RA, Wilkinson JM. Getting maintenance of certification to work: A grounded theory study of physicians’ perceptions. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2015;175(1):35–42.Google Scholar
- 14.Morrison J, Wickersham P. Physicians disciplined by a state medical board. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;279(23):1889–93.Google Scholar
- 16.Lipner RS, Young A, Chaudhry HJ, Duhigg LM, Papadakis MA. Specialty Certification Status, Performance Ratings, and Disciplinary Actions of Internal Medicine Residents. Academic Medicine. 2016;91(3):376–81.Google Scholar
- 17.Johnson DA, Chaudhry HJ. Medical Licensing and Discipline in America: A History of the Federation of State Medical Boards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield; 2012.Google Scholar
- 18.Wolfe S, Williams C, Zaslow A. Public Citizen’s Health Research Group Ranking of the Rate of State Medical Boards’ Serious Disciplinary Actions, 2009–2011. 2012.Google Scholar
- 19.Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States: Continuing Medical Education Board by Board Overview: 2015.Google Scholar
- 22.Cassel CK. ABIM: Maintenance of Certification—For the public. 2010.Google Scholar
- 24.Fleiss J, Levin B, Paik M. Statistical Methods for Rate and Proportions. 3rd ed Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2003:125–9.Google Scholar
- 31.Cuddy M, Young A, Gelman A, et al. Exploring the relationships between USMLE performance and disciplinary action in practice: A validity study of score inferences from a licensure examination. Academic Medicine. 2017;92(12):178–85.Google Scholar
- 32.Aboud KA, Ramesh V. Continuing Medical Education (CME): A reappraisal. Canadian Medical Education Journal. 2011;2(2):e91-e3.Google Scholar
- 39.Pineault R, Provost S, Borgès Da Silva R, Breton M, Levesque J-F. Why Is Bigger Not Always Better in Primary Health Care Practices? The Role of Mediating Organizational Factors. Inquiry: A Journal Of Medical Care Organization, Provision And Financing. 2016;53.Google Scholar
- 41.Lipner RS, Bylsma WH, Arnold GK, Fortna GS, Tooker J, Cassel CK. Who is maintaining certification in internal medicine -- and why? A national survey 10 years after initial certification. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006;144(1):29–36.Google Scholar