![Spacer](images/spacer.gif)
![Spacer](images/spacer.gif)
![Spacer](images/spacer.gif)
|
|
|
|
Search
08/05/2021 Jon Hultman, DPM
We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us
Taking and passing the USMLE is the true path to parity. DPMs are the only healthcare practitioners whose training includes a minimum of four years of podiatric medical school and three years of residency training that do not hold a plenary medical license. Because of this, DPMs are not considered physicians, are lumped with chiropractors and optometrists as providers of optional services under Medicaid, and must constantly amend state bills to include DPMs whenever those bills use the term “physician.” Every advancement that has been made in podiatric medicine has been considered a victory because it gave DPMs a benefit or privilege that MDs and DOs already had. This process has moved us incrementally closer to MDs and DOs, but in spite all these small “victories,” this will not win our “war for parity.”
The only achievable pathways that have been available for DPMs to attain true parity with MDs and DOs were to go to LCME accredited medical or a COCA accredited osteopathic schools to obtain MD or DO degrees, or to obtain a dual degree by taking additional years of education at an osteopathic/DPM school. Interestingly, in addition to more years of education, these pathways to parity both require taking and passing either the USMLE or the COMLEX exam. Once a doctor has obtained a dual MD/DPM degree, s/he still does not have a medical license. To obtain a medical license also requires completion of an ACGME approved residency program. If a DPM actually wants to practice podiatric medicine and surgery, s/he also needs to take a CPME approved podiatric residency.
To avoid these extra years of medical school and residency programs, a process was begun in California over ten years ago through the initiation of a task force that includes the California Medical Association, the California Orthopedic Association, the Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California, and the California Podiatric Medical Associations. The initial “impossible” hurdles for this task force to overcome were (1) the podiatric schools would need to be accredited by the LCME, (2) the residency programs would need to be accredited by the ACGME, and (3) graduates would need to take and pass the USMLE.
Of course, to be accredited by the LCME, the podiatric schools would need to become medical schools. That option was unacceptable. Following in depth visits by the task force representatives to the two California podiatric medical schools and four residency programs, the consensus was that the sequencing of DPM education was different from that of MDs and DOS because podiatric students choose their specialty at the beginning of their educational process. It was clear that by the end of the educational process DPMs were comparable to those in other surgical specialties of medicine. The end consensus of the members of the California Task Force was that if the accrediting standards of CPME were found to be comparable to LCME and ACGME (which we believe they are), the medical and orthopedic associations agreed that they would accept CPME as the accrediting body. The only requirement left would be to take and pass the USMLE; however, as it stands today DPMs cannot take the USMLE. Because access to the USMLE is a national issue, CPMA submitted the USMLE resolution to the APMA House of Delegates for action. After passing, this resolution was subsequently adopted by the National Task Force consisting of APMA, ACFAS, AAOS, and AOFAS.
The goal at this point in time is to simply to gain access to the test. The pathway to parity that California supports is the current one being pursued by the National Task Force. That is: CPME would remain as the accrediting body for the colleges and residency programs, no additional years of education beyond seven would be required, the pathway would be inclusive so that the USMLE would be an option for all DPMs who wanted to study and prepare for the exam, and the DPM degree would become the third degree to qualify for a plenary medical license – hence, DPM=MD=DO. The end result is that DPMs would be included in all statutes where the term “physician” is used, they would become R1 instead of R3 physicians under Medicare, their services would become mandatory under Medicaid, and DPMs would have true parity with MDs and DOs.
Without seizing this opportunity now, as we go into the future, DPMs will continue to be considered “non-physicians” – lumped with chiropractors and optometrists as optional services under Medicaid, and because they have a limited license, they will be doomed to fight battles each and every year just to retain previous gains or to advance small steps – one at a time – trying to move ever closer to MDs and DOs. If you were a college student trying to decide on a career, would you choose a specialty that requires seven to eight years of education and in which, upon graduation, its members would be considered non-physicians and practitioners of the only surgical specialty that holds a limited license?
One question I have for those who oppose this pathway – especially those who consider themselves to be visionaries and say they want what is best for our specialty – is, “What other credible alternative to true parity do you suggest?” Our profession has been talking about and working towards parity with MDs and DOs for my 50-year history as a DPM, but I have yet to see any other credible plan on the table that is actually achievable and has momentum. It has taken us ten years to get to a point that many in the past have considered to be impossible. Do we simply abandon this process, happy with the status quo, for the next 50 years?
Jon Hultman, DPM, Executive Director, California Podiatric Medical Association
Other messages in this thread:
08/09/2021 Eddie Davis, DPM
We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us (Tilden H Sokoloff, MD, DPM)
Sorry, I am a bit of a latecomer to this discussion but after reading Barry Block's editorial, “We Have Met The Enemy and It is Us” as well as Tilden Sokoloff’s response, more questions arise.
According to the Wikipedia article on the USMLE: “The USMLE assesses a physician's ability to apply knowledge, concepts, and principles, and to determine fundamental patient-centered skills that are important in health and disease and that constitute the basis of safe and effective patient care. Examination committees composed of medical educators and clinicians from across the United States and its territories create the examination materials each year. At least two committees critically appraise each test item or case, revising or discarding any materials that are in doubt. The program intends to provide state medical boards in the United States with a common examination for all licensure applicants. However, as of 2021, physicians with a DO degree do not require it for licensure.”
There are 3 parts to the USMLE. The third part is the last step in licensure per the Wikepedia article:
USMLE Step 3 is the final exam in the USMLE sequence and assesses whether medical school students or graduates can apply medical knowledge and understanding of biomedical and clinical science essential for the unsupervised practice of medicine, with emphasis on patient management in ambulatory settings . So those with a DO degree are not required to take USMLE for licensure. Yes, they have an alternative exam. DPMs who take USMLE Part 3, still have a limited license despite taking an exam designed to determine the ability to practice via an unrestricted or unlimited license. Dr. Sokoloff states that “no podiatric physician out of training for more than the past 10 years will qualify to take the examinations.” Why? What happens to our knowledge base after 10 years?
What happens to those who invested in a podiatric education who are more than 10 years from the end of training? How are we enhancing the opportunities of future students by having them take an exam that does not provide a scope of practice commensurate with the intent of the exam? Sorry Tilden, but I am not “kicking and screaming.” I am looking for a reasoned discussion of the proposed changes and how that not only benefits future students, but the profession as a whole.
Eddie Davis, DPM, San Antonio, TX
08/09/2021 Alan Sherman, DPM
We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us (Jon Hultman, DPM)
I agree with Jon Hultman on this issue and believe we as a profession should pursue nationally what the California Podiatric Medical Association successfully started in California. Allen Jacobs raises some valid practical issues that must be addressed but are not reasons to abandon the pursuit. There are times in the evolution of a profession where bold action is needed, and I believe this is one of those times. In general medicine, this occurred in 1910 with the release of the Flexner Report, calling for the standardization of hospital based medical education. For podiatry, it was the Selden Commission Report in 1961. We find ourselves at a crossroads in 2021. Reading the comments from our esteemed colleagues on the issue of the equivalence of our education to that of MD/DOs, we seem to fall into 3 camps: 1) The righteously indignant, who feel we deserve to be recognized already as equivalent, 2) the proud and entrenched, who feel we should protect the unique and separate identity of podiatry as a profession and 3) the progressive realists, who recognize that equivalence recognition by the medical hierarchy is only possible by cooperation with and following the standards set by the MD/DO hierarchy. I fall into that third camp. They are not coming to us for recognition. We are coming to them. If we want our education to be considered standard, I believe we must follow their rules to make it standard, and that mean making some modification to the curriculum of our schools, culminating with taking the USMLE and its predecessor exam. The Joint Task Forces have admirably and capably gotten this ball rolling, but there have been calls for greater transparency and inclusion in the effort. I think what we really need is the 21st century version of the Selden Commission to oversee the effort on behalf of the entire profession. It won’t be easy, as we are not a homogenous group. My personal feeling is that our diversity contributes to our richness as a profession and what we have to offer to serve the foot and ankle health care needs of the public. But whomever wishes to be heard should be heard and we need to choose leadership for this new commission carefully and have representation from all camps. Personally, I would like to see the esteemed Leonard Levy join with the current Task Force, as I don’t think there is a podiatrist alive who has the experience and the vision that he has, or is better suited for this challenge ahead.
Podiatric medical education and practice. 1960s to the 21st century by Leonard Levy, DPM, MPH Levy LA: Podiatric medical education and practice. 1960s to the 21st century. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1996, 86(8):370-375.
History of podiatric medical education. An update by C W Gibley Jr. Gibley CW: A history of podiatric medical education: an update. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1987, 77(8):404-418.
Alan Sherman, DPM, Boca Raton, FL
08/06/2021 Sabrina Minhas, DPM, James Hanna, DPM
We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us
We are writing to address the PM News editorial comments offered on the topic of the APMA endorsed White Paper and AMA Resolution submitted to the AMA House of Delegates for its consideration last June.
This is a problem which needs to be examined on two levels. The first level is an examination of the “ends”; and the second level is an examination of the “means.” Dr. Block quotes philosopher George Santayana in support of the APMA actions. One level of our concern is that the actions of the APMA are also burdened by Machiavelli’s; “The ends justify the means.”
In his editorial, Dr. Block cites three examples of “opposition” to seminal developments in the profession of podiatry. The first is the professional change from the term chiropody to podiatry. This was accomplished through: “…a late- night Parliamentary maneuver in 1957 to finally get it passed.” The second example was the inclusion of the term “medical” in the association name. Again, the editorial states that “… delegates unsuccessfully voted against the inclusion of the word “Medical.”” The third example was the development of the three year residency requirement. The editorial states: “…there was opposition to mandatory requirements of one, two, and finally three-year podiatric residencies.”
There is a common thread in each of Dr. Block’s cited examples. That common thread is that each of the seminal developments was accomplished in an open forum of the APMA House of Delegates with appropriate deliberation and transparency. That common thread is absent in the current attempt of the APMA Board and National Task Force’s effort to gain what they define as “physician” status within our scope.
The APMA House passed a Resolution, Resolution 4-19 in the 2019 APMA House of Delegates. In anticipation of it reporting back, that Resolution only authorized the APMA Board and National Task Force to continue discussions which had been initiated by the California Podiatric Medical Association. Those discussions had involved the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society. The stated purpose of including the APMA through the Resolution was to continue to advocate for the involvement of the American Medical Association (AMA) and American Osteopathic Association (AOA) with the National Joint Task Force. The operable portion of the Resolution states:
“RESOLVED, That the national joint task force work with AMA to facilitate discussions with the National Board of Medical Examiners to allow podiatric medical students to be eligible to take the United States Medical Licensing Examination…”
A report on the progress of these discussions was to be made to the 2020 APMA House. The 2020 House was a victim of COVID Cancellation. Further, no mention of these discussions or progress on Resolution 4-19 was made at the 2021 virtual House of Delegates. On March 17, 2021 APMA announced that it had “endorsed” a White Paper entitled “Improving the Standardization Process for Assessment of Podiatric Medical Students and Residents by Enabling Them to Take the USMLE.” Pursuant to endorsing this White Paper, the APMA National Task Force caused a Resolution to be placed before a special meeting of the American Medical Association House of Delegates which took place on June 11 through June 16. The AMA Resolution contains the following “resolve”:
“RESOLVED, that our American Medical Association study, with report back at the 2021 Interim House of Delegates Meeting, whether CPME accreditation standards are comparable to Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) standards and sufficient to meet requirements which would allow DPMs to take all parts of the USMLE.
This Resolution was introduced by the American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) and the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS). Our position is that the White Paper and the Resolution terms contain implications which promote the inference that our training and education are not at the level of a “common standard” which the Task Force defines as the USMLE, and improperly suggests that the sole path to recognition as Physicians should be passage of the USMLE.
• No disclosure of the content of the White Paper was made to APMA Stakeholders prior to the APMA Board endorsing the White Paper. • No disclosure of the content of the Resolution was made prior to the Resolution being submitted to the AMA. • No discussion took place prior to the recognition of a “common standard” being defined as the USMLE in the endorsed White Paper. • No discussion of podiatric medical school curriculum was solicited from the Deans prior to submitting the podiatry school curriculum to the review of the AMA. • The White paper states that passing the USMLE is “…essential to maintaining public trust.” • The White Paper states that “the care of patients will be assured by requiring basic medical education that would allow for qualifying DPMs to take and pass all 3 parts of the USMLE.” • The White Paper states that: “To …be considered physicians within their scope of practice, DPMs should be required to receive sufficient education and training to allow them to take and pass the USMLE.” • The implications of this White Paper is that our profession, which has its own educational structure, curriculum and training, is somehow inadequate because we have not passed a “common standard” which was created by and currently governed by the profession of allopathic medicine; the USMLE. We have two separate issues with the actions of the APMA. One is procedural and one substantive. Procedurally: The common thread in each of Dr. Block’s cited examples is missing here. No explanation to, or review by, any APMA stakeholder was solicited by the National Task Force or the APMA Board prior to calling for a “study” by a third party, the AMA. By endorsing the White Paper and submitting it to the AMA House, prior to any membership or stakeholder involvement, the APMA violated its own governing documents. That is, the actions of the Board exceeded the authority granted the Board under the 4-19 Resolution. Substantively: By endorsing the White Paper, the Board created new standards for each and every facet of the Profession without including those facets of the profession in discussions which resulted in the White Paper, and advances a policy in conflict with existing policies pursuing recognition for podiatrists as physicians. Additionally, this new standard is defined by and controlled by a separate health care profession.
Finally, the “…overwhelming majority of grassroots…” which Dr. Block cites constitutes 63% of 1056 people responding to the question of support for Students and Residents taking the USMLE. This means that 665 respondents were in favor of a truncated question summarizing this issue. This is not an “overwhelming majority” of a universe of over fourteen thousand podiatrists, or eleven thousand APMA members or the twenty two thousand subscribers of PM News.
The ends of this APMA effort may very well be advantageous to the profession; or they may be detrimental. The annual House of Delegates is the forum at which that decision is to be presented debated and decided. The House of Delegates is the forum at which each of Dr. Block’s seminal examples was decided. Here, there has been no forum. Rather, a seminal issue was covertly negotiated, seminal policies were covertly developed, and seminal actions taken in the public forum of the AMA without regard to our own membership and governance. This is not the manner in which our profession or Association is to be governed. Sabrina Minhas, DPM, President PPMA, James Hanna, DPM, President NYSPMA
08/05/2021 Allen Jacobs, DPM
We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us (Tilden H Sokoloff, MD, DPM)
Using phrases such as “those with no vision” or referring to those in disagreement with the students taking the USMLE test as “the enemy” serve no useful purpose. The concerns expressed by those opposed to the white paper should be considered seriously as they represent concerns about the future of this profession.
Dr. Sokoloff consistently refers to the advances made by the California Podiatric medical Association. However I do have some questions. Do the students graduating the podiatry colleges in California take the USMLE examination? The answer is no. Are podiatrists in California still considered a podiatrist with no advanced delineation of privileges beyond that typical for podiatry in the state of California? Again, the answer is no. Are the colleges of podiatry in the state of California approved by the liaison committee on medical education which approves medical schools? The answer is no. Are the residencies in podiatry in the state of California approved by ACGME? Again, the answer is no.
Those of us who question the proposition within the white paper are not anti-growth of our profession. They are individuals who care very much about this profession and very much about the DPM degree and what it represents. Rather than resorting to ad hominem personal attacks, we should consider seriously the potential validity of alternate opinions. Alternate opinions should be respected.
I suggest that those supporting our students taking the USMLE examination look at the sample questions available online, as I did. I would ask that you seriously consider whether or not you believe podiatry school graduates would successfully pass this examination.
I suggest you look at the high failure rate for this examination in foreign medical school graduates. In order to pass USMLE examination, significant changes would be required in the schools of podiatry. So far as I am aware the Deans of the colleges have never been consulted regarding the ability to make such changes without sacrificing basic podiatry training.
More importantly, in the end, what is to be gained by making substantial changes in our college curricula, residency training, and fellowship training if in the end we are still defined as a podiatrist with limited privileges? Do you actually foresee the day that a foot and ankle orthopedic surgeon will refer to a podiatrist as their “total equal“.
Perhaps a clear understanding of the eventual benefits oh by our students taking the USMLE should be better defined
Allen Jacobs, DPM, St. Louis, MO
08/04/2021 Ira Kraus, DPM
We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us
There has been much discussion about that there should have been deliberation by the profession about the white paper and resolution and whether access to the USMLE for podiatrists should be pursued. The reality is that there has been much discussion and debate about this dating back to 2005, when the resolution known as Vision 2015 was passed. As a result of that resolution, a task force was formed to develop a pathway to the stated goal of the resolution of achieving parity with our allopathic and osteopathic colleagues by the year 2015.
The task force reported back to the 2006 APMA House of Delegates. That task forces report included a section that said (paraphrasing) that ultimately to achieve parity with allopathic medicine, podiatrists will need to take and pass the same examination that the allopathic physicians take, i.e. the USMLE. That was in 2006. The subsequent work of Vision 2015 committees discussed the USMLE and NBPME and how they might possibly interact to achieve the goal of parity.
The California Podiatric Medical Association began their work on achieving a Physician and Surgeons Certificate in California, i.e. a plenary license. Part of that process included that obtaining a Physicians and Surgeons Certificate would require passage of the USMLE. CPMA realized they could not gain access to the USMLE on their own and when the national Task Force of Orthopedic and Podiatric Surgeons was formed they recognized that this could be the method to gain access to the examination. They introduced Resolution 4-19 to the APMA HOD which directed APMA to work with AMA to facilitate discussions with the National Board of Medical Examiners (the controlling agent for the USMLE) to allow podiatrists to be able to take the USMLE.
Resolution 4-19 passed on consent agenda with a majority of states and organizations signing on as co-sponsors. So the white paper and AMA Resolution that came out of the task force was not some sudden whim of the Task Force members and the respective boards of APMA and ACFAS, but rather the culmination of 16 years of work and discussion.
The AMA resolution was simply directed at gaining access to the USMLE for podiatric students and graduates of CPME accredited colleges of podiatric medicine. So despite what has been written, if access to the USMLE is gained—all podiatrists would be eligible to take all parts. Granted it might not be desired and could be difficult for those that have been out for a period of time, but no one will be denied access to taking the exam. Also, the focus on the white paper is misguided. The white paper is a supporting document for the AMA resolution and should be read as if you were an AMA delegate. It was written to convince an AMA delegate to support the efforts to gain access to the USMLE. It does not establish any new standard and it does not state that the current podiatric medical education is lacking or that there is any lack of public trust in the current system of licensing podiatrists.
The ultimate goal of the process would be to have MD, DO, and DPM degrees seen to be equivalent. On the federal level this would mean working to change the classification of podiatrists in Medicare from the current R (3) categorization to an R (1) categorization—which currently includes MD and DO. If R (1) were achieved for podiatry, there would be no need for the HELLPP Act as podiatrists would then automatically be defined as physicians in Medicaid. It is important to note, if this were to occur, it would include all with a DPM degree independent of whether they had taken and passed the USMLE or not.
However, this is simply the first step in the process—trying to gain access to the USMLE, an exam that currently we cannot take. Once access is gained, the profession can determine what steps occur next and how we move forward from there. This is for the future of our profession and just this week the APMSA House of Delegates passed a resolution in support of this process. The resolved from that resolution: “Be it resolved; that APMSA will support the Joint Task Force in a resolution that would allow podiatric medical students access to the USMLE.”
Now is the time to move our profession forward.
Ira Kraus, DPM, Past president APMA, Member Task Force
08/04/2021 Steven Selby Blanken, DPM
We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us
I am very concerned about the repercussions that can occur from this white paper. First of all, it said APMA approved this, but somehow, most of the members were not informed. This should have been a large topic to be discussed by all state societies prior to presenting to the other boards and societies. There should have been feedback from state to state from all members before rendering an APMA decision.
I am concerned about the drawbacks that can hit existing DPMs over 10 years from training. I am concerned how this can be used against us in malpractice claims where the prosecution would use this against a charged DPM. I am concerned how hospitals can limit the procedures they allow for older DPM's just based on this. I am curious what PICA has to say about this? Interestingly, I come from a family of podiatrists, My grandfather was a DSC and had his degree changed to DPM. He was a visionary in our field and even helped the start of PICA and PCPM. He was a DCPMA delegate for years.
I followed in his footsteps as I was fortunate to be surgically trained and certified in Foot Surgery. I even was a residency director at one time. My son is also a DPM in his second year of residency with training of the highest level. So you can see I have some issues with this coming out to the other societies prior to all the members discussing this in detail. This is not a small topic, it is huge.
With no offense to the state of California, but it does not represent the entire 50 states. I applaud the effort, but I feel we should reach out to all of our leaders of our profession, past and present officers/presidents and discuss this further in a larger forum. I was at MPMA meeting last week and was going to vote on something about this topic. I withdrew my second of the motion because I listened to a former APMA president's view on the motion and it was eye opening and very much appreciated. The Foot and Ankle MDs and the lawyers could a field day on members in the future if this white paper is not discussed and modified thoroughly. Steven Selby Blanken, DPM, Silver Spring, MD
|
|
|
|
|