ABMS denies independent medical board for cardiology
Key takeaways:
- The American Board of Medical Specialties denied creation of an independent cardiology certification board.
- Proponents of the new board are “reviewing options for next steps.”
The American Board of Medical Specialties denied approval of creation of an independent cardiology certification board championed by the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine, according to a press release.
Jeffrey Kuvin, MD, the Lorinda and Vincent de Roulet Professor of Medicine and chair of the department of cardiology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell and chair of the ABCVM’s board of directors, issued the following statement:
“We are deeply disappointed with the American Board of Medical Specialties’ decision not to approve the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine as a new, independent board for cardiology.
“The decision ignores the evolution of cardiovascular medicine into its own distinct medical specialty, separate from the field of internal medicine, requiring its own set of knowledge, skills, and competencies to sustain professional excellence and effectively care for cardiovascular patients. In addition, the decision does not acknowledge fundamental change in how clinicians learn information and demonstrate skills throughout their careers.
“We feel strongly that the ABCVM met all the criteria required for a new Board, including aligning with the rigorous, recently updated ABMS ‘Standards for Continuing Certification,’ which promote integrated, specialty-specific programs that further a diplomate’s continuous professional development and emphasize improvements in health care quality, safety, value, and competency, rather than a focus on punitive examinations. In addition, the ABCVM application met the expected financial metrics for establishing a new, independent Board with tremendous professional support within the ‘house of cardiology,’ and beyond.
The ABCVM Board of Directors is reviewing options for next steps. In the meantime, we expect that ABMS will listen to the feedback and comments from the cardiovascular community.
We are overdue on rethinking the current approach to assessment and maintenance of competency and look forward to continuing to find new ways to ensure continuous cardiovascular clinical competence in a manner that meets the best interests of cardiovascular physicians and patients, alike.”
In an update issued on Feb. 5 while the ABCVM awaited approval by the ABMS, the ABCVM encouraged CV physicians to maintain certification via currently approved pathways including Collaborative Maintenance Pathway, 10-year examinations and Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment.
As Healio previously reported, the creation of an independent certification board for CV medicine was supported by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. The effort to create an independent certification board for CV medicine arose after complaints of American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) maintenance of certification (MOC) system requirements being onerous while not improving physician competency and charging excessive fees.
In a statement emailed to Healio, Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, FHRS, the Martha M. and Harold W. Kimmerling chair in cardiology, the Pauley Heart Center’s director of clinical cardiac electrophysiology and pacing at the Medical College of Virginia (MCV), director of clinical cardiac electrophysiology and pacing at Virginia Commonwealth University’s MCV campus and president of HRS, said: “The ABMS’s decision to deny the establishment of ABCVM is profoundly disappointing to HRS membership. ABMS’ decision ignores the evolution of CV medicine into its own distinct medical specialty, separate from the field of internal medicine, requiring its own set of knowledge, skills and competencies to sustain professional excellence and effectively care for cardiovascular patients. It also fails to acknowledge fundamental change in how clinicians learn information and demonstrate skills throughout our careers. Although this decision marks a setback, we (ACC, AHA, HFSA, HRS and SCAI) remain unified and committed to supporting the professional needs of our cardiovascular clinicians and ensuring we can continue to serve our patients and the public at the highest levels. The ABCVM Board of Directors are reviewing options as we continue to advocate for a certification and recertification process that best serves the needs of cardiovascular physicians and their patients.”
In a press release issued by SCAI, James B. Hermiller, MD, MSCAI, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship and the Structural Heart Program at St. Vincent Ascension Heart Center in Indianapolis, and the society’s president, said that “SCAI strongly supported the creation of the ABCVM, but unfortunately the ABMS did not acknowledge the fact that cardiovascular medicine is a unique field that demands its own modernized approach to competency assessment. ABMS had an opportunity to support a forward-thinking, evidence-based certification model that aligns with how cardiovascular specialists train, practice, and maintain their skills today. Instead, they have chosen to uphold an outdated system that does not reflect the realities of our profession or the needs of our patients. While this decision is unfortunate and short-sighted, it is not the end of the discussion. We remain committed to exploring all options to ensure a fair, relevant and economical certification pathway for the interventional and cardiovascular communities. We look forward to continuing to work with our partners ACC, AHA, HFSA and HRS to evaluate all options to ensure the best path forward for our profession. The fight has not ended.”
In April 2024, the ABMS announced a 90-day comment period, which closed in July 2024, to discuss the approval of an independent CV board.
The other nine members of the proposed board were Mark H. Drazner, MD (treasurer), Peter L. Duffy, MD, David P. Faxon, MD, Edward T. A. Fry, MD, Judith S. Hochman, MD, Jodie L. Hurwitz, MD (secretary), Michelle Maya Kittleson, MD, Daniel M. Kolansky, MD, and Gregory F. Michaud, MD. Other members were to be announced at a later date.
For more information, visit cvboard.org.
Editor’s note: This is a developing news story. Please check back soon for more details .
References:
- SCAI expresses disappointment over ABMS decision to deny independent cardiovascular medicine board. https://scai.org/scai-expresses-disappointment-over-abms-decision-deny-independent-cardiovascular-medicine-board. Published Feb. 28, 2025. Accessed Feb. 28, 2025.
- Update on the proposed new board of cardiovascular medicine. https://cvboard.org/pressreleases/update-on-the-proposed-new-board-of-cardiovascular-medicine/. Published Feb. 5, 2025. Accessed Feb. 28, 2025.
Collapse