ABFP strives to put best foot forward on MC-FP
Would you like your chapter to have its own "private viewing" of the American Board of Family Practice's Maintenance of Certification Program for Family Physicians? All you have to do is ask, ABFP Deputy Executive Director Joseph Tollison, M.D., said recently.
Though well-received by many diplomates, the program has raised concern among some, and ABFP recognizes that, Tollison said. So the board is seeking opportunities to present information about the program to Academy chapters and other groups firsthand. "We're ready to go," Tollison said. "We'd like to go. Please invite us."
Speaking April 30 at a session during the Academy's Annual Leadership Forum-National Conference of Special Constituencies, Tollison explained that the maintenance of certification mandate is an initiative of the American Board of Medical Specialties and its 24 member boards.
"Thirty-five years ago, when the specialty started up and we began certifying (family physicians), FPs were ripe for revolution," said Tollison. "Now, family physicians are a burdened, beleaguered, badgered group of physicians, and it bothers us (at ABFP) that MC-FP comes at this time. So we're empathetic, but we still have to be committed to carrying it forward."
In acknowledging that the board's ultimate responsibility is to the American public, the ABFP regrets not emphasizing its long-held belief that it has 67,000 diplomates between it and that responsibility, Tollison said.
Feedback from AAFP leaders and rank-and-file members has helped ABFP make significant revisions to the program to better serve diplomates, Tollison noted.
Most recently, the two organizations have signed onto a memorandum of understanding regarding MC-FP. AAFP President Michael Fleming, M.D., of Shreveport, La., said the move benefits both groups by clarifying expectations.
"This (memo) sets down a group of mutually agreed-upon principles that allows us a definitive common ground from which to work," Fleming said in an interview after the ALF-NCSC meeting.
Meanwhile, at the grassroots level, many FPs remain wary of the new initiative. One FP, Indiana AFP President Richard Feldman, M.D., of Beech Grove, voiced his and his chapter's concerns during the April 30 session.
"I've been a residency director for almost 25 years," Feldman declared, "so I think I understand education."
MC-FP is not appropriate and it's not needed, he said. "The message we're sending is that what we've been doing (in terms of maintaining certification and demonstrating competence) is meaningless."
The Indiana AFP, Feldman said, will consider a resolution on the issue at its annual meeting in July. And Indiana isn't alone in this endeavor, he added, rattling off the names of two other constituent chapters with similar plans.
Why are some chapters willing to accept -- even embrace -- MC-FP, while others rail against it?
Fleming chalks it up to several factors: "How the concept was initially presented; how 'beaten down' a group feels; etc. But I really believe that how this process has been communicated - or even more, not communicated - has had the most powerful effect on support or acceptance and nonacceptance."
He noted that AAFP President-elect Mary Frank, M.D., of Mill Valley, Calif., recently attended the annual meeting of the Nebraska AFP - another chapter that had expressed chagrin about the new program. "She did a wonderful job of explaining our dealings with ABFP and settling some of their angst over the issue," Fleming said.
To reach writer Cindy Borgmeyer, e-mail cborgmey@aafp.org.
FP Report is published by the
AAFP News Department.
Copyright © 2004 by
American Academy of Family Physicians.