From: John Coleman, DPM
Dr. Spinner’s letter regarding the resignation of ABPM directors was so inaccurate I don’t know where to begin. Observing the behavior of all the “players” recently that revolved around CAQs, the APMA summit, to the Oregon ruling regarding surgical privileges, I find Dr. Rogers agenda to be one of the few that I would call admirable and without being self-serving. This is the exact opposite of “selfish”.
Dr. Spinner writes, ”I believe board certification should not be a gatekeeper to hospital staffs.” That’s exactly what Oregon tried to do. And ABPM fought. The Oregon Board of Medicine wanted board certification to dictate privileges, not individual hospitals. This would limit the right to do procedures to a certain few with certain letters behind their name. How is that protecting the public? Isn’t that each individual hospital’s job? Not a certifying board in another state.
John Coleman, DPM, Macclenny, FL
From: Lloyd Smith, DPM
I find the debate by Dr. Spinner and Dr. Udell significant, especially when combined with the recent APMA letter and the Summit at the House of Delegates. Issues of this sort are multifaceted and quickly become emotional. There are no easy solutions. Blog forums are not helpful in resolving an issue of this magnitude.
All parties involved must commit personal time and organizational funds to meet and present their issues and possible solutions. APMA has done the groundwork at the Summit. I participated and chaired many of these forums during my political career. They are successful if everyone commits to the process.
The next steps include the meeting(s) noted above with an appropriate facilitator in order to create compromise and agreement. The task may not be easy but the profession needs a solution.
Lloyd Smith, DPM, Newton, MA
